I don't know how many times i got asked this today. I guess the Government class has to write a paper about this, so I thought it might be interesting to hear what the people of think atheist think? I think if they're a citizen and they've been in the US for so many years they should be able to run for president.
Alright, I know what you mean. Should an immigrant be able to hold the office of the Presidency. I really don't think it is a matter of should. But I am also interested in hearing what others have to say.
No, I believe this method was introduced to disallow the concept of a presidential "mole" or figure with another countries agenda. I do not believe that we're "narrowing" our options of good candidates by continuing this age old rule, nor do I find it to be derogatory. Quite simply, no immigrants should be able to hold the office of the president of the united states. Their children however are an entirely different matter
Seem you haven't done homework on types of governments. United States has a Democratic, Republic form of government. A "figure Head" is that of a Parliamentary -like Japan and the U.K. The Figure heads of these countries are the Queen and the Emperor. They don't govern the country, the Prime Minister does.
Actually, Jesus, America is a “Corporatocracy or corpocracy...a form of government where corporations, conglomerates or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country.” Better known as Fascism, a form of government that existed under Mussolini when the majority of the wealth and power was tied up in the hands of a few. Americans think they live in a democratic republic because they don't see jackboots and think their vote really matters. But you only get Twiddle Dee or Twiddle Dum.
The Wealth Distribution
"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010)."
Yes, I agree, Eric. From the very 1st president to the present, all have done the bidding of corporations while ignoring the needs of the masses.
War? Who benefits from wars? The poor who fight them or the rich who start them?
Why is unemployment necessary in order for an unregulated capitalist nation to succeed?
Why are jobs outsourced? Why are high tech Asian workers being imported at one third the salary of American techs who are then laid off?
Why is the government the major supplier of illegal drugs--who benefits the poor or the rich?
Why does free trade reward investors in foreign business while undercutting American business? And why is it allowed?
Thomas Jefferson "was, as well, a relentless critic of the monopolizing of economic power by banks, corporations and those who put their faith in what the third president referred to as "the selfish spirit of commerce (that) knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain."
Thanks for backing me up. From the very beginning this country was founded on the principles of advancing the rich.
An excerpt from A Peoples History to The United States (Howard Zinn) summarizing Charles Beard's - "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution" 1913:
"Charles Beard found of the fifty-five men who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 to draw up the Constitution that a majority of them were lawyers by profession, that most of them were men of wealth, in land, slaves, manufacturing, or shipping, that half of them had money loaned out at interest, and that forty ...of the fifty-five held government bonds, according to the records of the Treasury Department."
"Thus, Beard found that most of the makers of the Constitution had some direct economic interest in establishing a strong federal government: the manufacturers needed protective tariffs; the moneylenders wanted to stop the use of paper money to pay off debts; the land speculators wanted protection as they invaded Indian lands; slave owners needed federal security against slave revolts and runaways; bondholders wanted a government able to raise money by nationwide taxation, to pay off those bonds."
Barbour, the Republican governor of Mississippi flirting with a presidential bid in 2012, told reporters today thatAmericans know less about President Obama than "any other president in history.""
I don't mean to derail, but I heard this from a co-worker the other day. He said the "we" don't know anything about Obama and seemed to think him and his life were a complete mystery, which is bad because a nefarious history and evil plotting were cloaked in this mystery, I suppose.
But what many white people fail to realize is that they generally have an equal ignorance about other presidents. I really think that race plays a role in this. They are more comfortable with other white folks, feel a kinship maybe, and are more trusting with the familiarity of a shared skin color. A black President gets their guard up and they ask questions they wouldn't of a white man, like "who is this guy, really"?
They are more comfortable with other white folks, feel a kinship maybe, and are more trusting with the familiarity of a shared skin color. A black President gets their guard up and they ask questions they wouldn't of a white man, like "who is this guy, really"?
I completely agree. Over the past two years of Obama's presidency, I've been disgusted by the ignorant commentary that I have heard from white family members and acquaintances. It's always along the lines of "There's just something about him that I don't like; he just gives me the creeps!" Gee, wonder what that "something" could be; it's like they think if they don't directly acknowledge that skin color is that "something," then it's fine to engage in moronically superficial bigotry.
Don't get me wrong, I'll all for intelligent criticism of any president; I love hearing a reasoned analysis of an economic plan or a knowledgeable criticism of a foreign policy matter. But what I can't stand is this idiotic, ambiguous criticism that is so blatantly sugar-coated racism.
I'm curious, were your family members and friends democrats before and decided to change their political party because of Obama? Because, I remember quite well the "rights" bashing of Bill Clinton or the "left" constantly making comments that Bush Jr. was a Nazi and resembled Hitler.
I definitely understand people being set aback by him because of his race, for sure, but I don't think that's what is really resonating here. Granted the majority of people in the Tea Party are misguided due to the republicans and those fucking retards Beck and Palin stealing a somewhat descent movement, but I remember all of the hate spewed at good ol' W (which he completely deserved). I just see this as another spectator sport anything to rile up the other team.
With out the media American politics would be so dull.
Actually, you can't have an immigrant as a President, unless you change the constitution dramatically.
It is by law in the United States that the President must be born in the United States, and all other qualifications for government. For logical and rational reasons as well, we can't risk putting an immigrant in power as loyalty cannot be detected accurately.
It is however, possible for Immigrants to hold higher offices, such as a Senator, Congressman, or a Governor. One of the requirements in able to become a U.S. senator is that you are a naturalized citizen for 10 years, your age is 35 years to 63 years old.