ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , amendments , constitution

Reply
Old 13th December 2018, 02:45 AM   #41
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,613
One word:

Shwrtse

Swatsesn

Shwatzennn


Arnold.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 03:16 AM   #42
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,238
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
One word:

Shwrtse

Swatsesn

Shwatzennn


Arnold.
You misspelled Ahnold.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 03:19 AM   #43
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 6,523
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
As a non-American I say yes! It is my dream to be your ruler. Make it so!
Hiring an outside consultant is exactly what US Inc. might need to restore stockholder confidence.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 03:26 AM   #44
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,613
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Hiring an outside consultant is exactly what US Inc. might need to restore stockholder confidence.

This bloke's the fella you need. Offer him a massive contract to come to the USA and to be the outsider you need to really put the final polish on the current project you have going on over there.

Please ensure that your contract includes a rider that he can never, ever again become involved in politics outside the USA.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 05:27 AM   #45
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,429
Still haven't read an argument why a non citizen shouldn't be allowed to be president.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 07:04 AM   #46
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,622
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
I love how AOC triggers the little snowflakes on the USAian right. An independent young brown skinned woman actually out to drain the swamp.

Just look at them clutching their pearls. I love it so much.
That was precious
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 07:13 AM   #47
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,129
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Should the Constitution Be Amended to Allow Under-35s and Immigrants to be President?
On the one hand, I'd like the president to be more experienced than not. On the other, if people want to vote for toddlers...
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 07:17 AM   #48
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,129
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Make it so!
Engage!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 07:32 AM   #49
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Still haven't read an argument why a non citizen shouldn't be allowed to be president.
One potential reason could be because they might be President of another country at the same time. It would cause dilution of oversight.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 07:39 AM   #50
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
One potential reason could be because they might be President of another country at the same time. It would cause dilution of oversight.
It seems like leading another country wouldn't be a secret. Therefore, voters have the ability to weigh that risk. Why should people in the past without that information override the decisions made by those who possess that information?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 08:04 AM   #51
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,581
I thought we already have a non-citizen running the country.

One change I would like to see is some sort of requirement to hold elected office prior to the presidency. Or maybe a certain level in the military or another federal agency. Basically, a public service requirement.

But, I do see the problems that come attached to that as well.
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 08:07 AM   #52
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,581
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
One potential reason could be because they might be President of another country at the same time. It would cause dilution of oversight.
Can you imagine the US government being run by another country's ruler? Crazy, I know
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 09:06 AM   #53
Grizzly Adams
Graduate Poster
 
Grizzly Adams's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,148
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Because you don't believe me, do you?
Actually, I'm very much aware that USC men and women are treated slightly differently when it comes to unwed parentage and transmission of US citizenship. In all likelihood, I know way more about citizenship and nationality law than you do. I was just curious which part, specifically, was chapping your ass.

Quote:
American fathers need to establish paternity, that makes some sense though that law should be updated given paternity is now established with a genetic test.
Why does any change need to be made to the law to accommodate this? "Clear and convincing evidence" of paternity is the standard. Genetic testing certainly meets it already.

Quote:
Certain politicians don't want to recognize as citizens children born to foreign women fathered by American men.
Which politicians have made statements to that effect?

Quote:
But there is no maternity doubt for an unwed mother. Why does she have to have lived in the US for a year? A woman who is a legitimate citizen but has children born out of wedlock in another country is a second class citizen.

In both cases, unwed mothers have fewer rights for their children not born in the US regardless if one parent is a US citizen.
I think it's rather funny that you don't realize that an unwed USC father must have lived in the US or its outlying possessions for at least five years in order to transmit US citizenship to his illegitimate child, but think the one-year residence requirement for the mother is a sexist affront to equality.

https://dc.fd.org/library/naturalization%20chart.pdf
Grizzly Adams is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 10:12 AM   #54
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It seems like leading another country wouldn't be a secret. Therefore, voters have the ability to weigh that risk. Why should people in the past without that information override the decisions made by those who possess that information?
Well, the founding fathers of the U.S. implemented the electoral college in large part as a guard against the voters selecting a charismatic rogue or charlatan (although we all see how well that worked out). The voters can't always be trusted to make a decision in their best interests.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 10:17 AM   #55
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Well, the founding fathers of the U.S. implemented the electoral college in large part as a guard against the voters selecting a charismatic rogue or charlatan (although we all see how well that worked out). The voters can't always be trusted to make a decision in their best interests.
By that logic, the founders who voted for the Constitution cannot have been trusted to have made a decision in their own best interest when they voted to ratify. So the fact they did it cannot be taken as a good idea.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 10:23 AM   #56
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
By that logic, the founders who voted for the Constitution cannot have been trusted to have made a decision in their own best interest when they voted to ratify. So the fact they did it cannot be taken as a good idea.
The fact that they carved a nation that has been able to survive and thrive, and that hasn't yet suffered a mass exodus, shows to my mind that they did a good foundational first pass.

Survival is a principle also, is it not?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 10:34 AM   #57
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
The fact that they carved a nation that has been able to survive and thrive, and that hasn't yet suffered a mass exodus, shows to my mind that they did a good foundational first pass.

Survival is a principle also, is it not?
No.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 10:41 AM   #58
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
No.
You are wrong, according to Merriam-Webster.
Quote:
principle noun
prin·​ci·​ple | \ˈprin(t)-s(ə-)pəl, -sə-bəl\
Definition of principle
1a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption
b(1) : a rule or code of conduct

(2) : habitual devotion to right principles
a man of principle

c : the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device
2 : a primary source : ORIGIN
3a : an underlying faculty or endowment
such principles of human nature as greed and curiosity
b : an ingredient (such as a chemical) that exhibits or imparts a characteristic quality
4 capitalized, Christian Science : a divine principle : GOD
in principle
: with respect to fundamentals
prepared to accept the proposition in principle
Survival is a rule of conduct. Hence, according to some who hold it as a principle, suicide is a wrongful act.

Some principles may conflict with other principles. Then an individual must deconfliction, or prioritize, their principles.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 10:42 AM   #59
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 77,129
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
No.
Things are only principles when it's convenient to your games.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 10:52 AM   #60
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
You are wrong, according to Merriam-Webster.


Survival is a rule of conduct. Hence, according to some who hold it as a principle, suicide is a wrongful act.

Some principles may conflict with other principles. Then an individual must deconfliction, or prioritize, their principles.
I'm absent this conflict you speak of
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:05 PM   #61
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm absent this conflict you speak of
I guess we'll just have to take your word on that.

ETA: standing by for news of your accident with a truck because you maintained your right-of-way.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 13th December 2018 at 12:07 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:29 PM   #62
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,725
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Now that I'm 70, I have my doubts about allowing under-35's to even vote. Then again, they mostly fit my political beliefs better than my own generation.
I'm with you.

In Linda Ellerbee's book she described herself at age 20 as not being able to find her ass with both hands. That isn't too far off for anybody in their twenties in today's world.

I think this piece is as much click-bait as anything else.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 12:52 PM   #63
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
The fact that they carved a nation that has been able to survive and thrive, and that hasn't yet suffered a mass exodus, shows to my mind that they did a good foundational first pass.
Is one win sufficient to justify overriding the case specific review of every future election?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 01:17 PM   #64
kayle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 260
why not, as mentioned above: can you get worse...
kayle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 05:28 PM   #65
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 19,550
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I see no reason why a naturalized citizen shouldn't be allowed to become president.

35 is reasonable enough. I'd just add an age cap of 65 when starting first term. Might fall afoul of anti-age discrimination legislation though.
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
That's begging the question: Why is 35+ not age discrimination?
It is, but it's spelled out in the Constitution, which trumps everything else in US law. A 65 limit would have to be put in the constitution as well.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2018, 12:52 PM   #66
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,225
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
....
But as silly an argument for changing the constitution as Yglesias makes, it strikes me that revisiting the qualifications for the Presidency might not be a bad idea. Is there a good reason not to allow under 35s to be President? Is it important that immigrants be forever barred from the highest office in the land?
....
At the time the Constitution was drafted, average life expectancy was much shorter. George Washington died at age 67, after two terms as President. Considering the level of life experience and maturity that a President should have, 35 is probably too young. There's certainly no good reason to lower it.

But the "natural born" provision was mainly created to prevent some English royal from taking over the government. It might be reasonable to say that any immigrant who has been a citizen for a number of years (maybe 20?) should be able to offer himself as a candidate for President, and let the voters decide.

An amendment might be more palatable if it didn't take effect until, say, 10 years after ratification. That would mean that the debate wouldn't necessarily be clouded by any particular current figure. (A few years ago some people were talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger running. Not so much anymore.)
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2018, 12:58 PM   #67
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 15,429
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
At the time the Constitution was drafted, average life expectancy was much shorter. George Washington died at age 67, after two terms as President. Considering the level of life experience and maturity that a President should have, 35 is probably too young. There's certainly no good reason to lower it.

But the "natural born" provision was mainly created to prevent some English royal from taking over the government. It might be reasonable to say that any immigrant who has been a citizen for a number of years (maybe 20?) should be able to offer himself as a candidate for President, and let the voters decide.

An amendment might be more palatable if it didn't take effect until, say, 10 years after ratification. That would mean that the debate wouldn't necessarily be clouded by any particular current figure. (A few years ago some people were talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger running. Not so much anymore.)
There is an extremely good reason to lower it.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2018, 01:04 PM   #68
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,225
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Here's an exceptionally silly article from Matt Yglesias, pushing the concept so that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can run in 2020. His arguments as to why AOC (or ACO) should run are somewhat amusing:
....

I note that the article is not really a promotion of her candidacy as much as the argument that younger is better. From the article:

Quote:
While the law prevents anyone under the age of 35 from becoming president, we currently have a septuagenarian in the White House whose frequent nonsensical diatribes and notoriously scattered Twitter outbursts repeatedly raise the prospect of mental decline. Meanwhile, the top two Democrats in national polling — Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden — are 77 and 76, respectively.

There’s nothing wrong with old people per se, but essentially everyone has lost a step or two both mentally and physically by their mid-70s.

But more to the point, the really awful thing about being old is that you just keep getting older over time. We’re sitting here in the winter of 2018 talking about filling a presidential term that won’t start until 2021 — with an inevitable reelection campaign in 2024 for a term that wouldn’t end until early 2029.

With youth, by contrast, it’s the exact opposite situation. You might worry that a new youthful president is underexperienced (but then again, which president hasn’t been a little underexperienced), but lack of experience is guaranteed to improve with time. Things are as bad as they’ll ever be during the campaign, so voters can judge for themselves without worrying about lurking problems.
His point is that, as with Trump, Reagan and others, some people can be too old to be President, and unlike lack of experience, age doesn't get better.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2018, 02:16 PM   #69
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,972
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I note that the article is not really a promotion of her candidacy as much as the argument that younger is better. From the article:



His point is that, as with Trump, Reagan and others, some people can be too old to be President, and unlike lack of experience, age doesn't get better.
I think Ocasio-Cortez is a great argument against "younger is better". I do agree that 70s is too old, and for the Supreme Court as well.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 12:50 AM   #70
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,980
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But the "natural born" provision was mainly created to prevent some English royal from taking over the government.
I was taught that it was to spite Alexander Hamilton because his birthplace remained British.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 06:03 AM   #71
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I was taught that it was to spite Alexander Hamilton because his birthplace remained British.
That doesn't make sense. The clause for being president says you have to be a natural born citizen OR a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Hamilton would have been the latter. Most people would have at that time.
bonzombiekitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2018, 05:37 PM   #72
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,495
Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty View Post
That doesn't make sense. The clause for being president says you have to be a natural born citizen OR a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Hamilton would have been the latter. Most people would have at that time.
That is correct. Hamilton was a citizen of New York, thus a US citizen, before the adoption of the Constitution.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 07:00 AM   #73
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 15,432
Honestly I think eligibility to vote and eligibility to hold the office should be same.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st December 2018, 05:52 PM   #74
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,495
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Honestly I think eligibility to vote and eligibility to hold the office should be same.
Do we change the standards for voting or holding office?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:00 AM   #75
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,641
I have no problem with the age requirement, but I do have a problem with the natural born citizen requirement. This made sense back in the day when the Nation was young but I don’t think it works in an established country of immigrants anymore. A naturalized citizen who has met all requirements of residency, etc to become a citizen should be equal to any other citizen. There shouldn’t be any differentiation in legal status. Every citizen should have an opportunity to be President if they can get elected.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:37 AM   #76
Pope130
Master Poster
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I have no problem with the age requirement, but I do have a problem with the natural born citizen requirement. This made sense back in the day when the Nation was young but I don’t think it works in an established country of immigrants anymore. A naturalized citizen who has met all requirements of residency, etc to become a citizen should be equal to any other citizen. There shouldn’t be any differentiation in legal status. Every citizen should have an opportunity to be President if they can get elected.
There's actually an argument that naturalized citizens are better qualified for elective office. They have had to pass a citizenship test that requires some knowledge of history and structure of government. I believe that some of our current elected representatives would fail that test.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:40 AM   #77
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,672
If the Constitution gets amended, then I have no problem with it.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 09:41 AM   #78
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,672
As long as you are a US citizen, and weren't delivered by Cesarian Section, then I think you are good.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 10:26 AM   #79
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,957
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
I love how AOC triggers the little snowflakes on the USAian right. An independent young brown skinned woman actually out to drain the swamp.
How is the color of her skin relevant to the stupidity of her ideas?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 07:19 PM   #80
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,495
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How is the color of her skin relevant to the stupidity of her ideas?
Hmmmmm....good question. But there does seem to be a correlation between how orange someone's skin is and the stupidity of their ideas.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.