• Pickle_Jr@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Treczoks@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That was not because he was an actor. That was because Reagan was stupid enough to listen to the wrong people.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            OP’s point is that there is a correlation between celebrity presidents and terrible decisions affecting the nation.

            • wombatula@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

                • wombatula@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Or you know, don’t vote for terrible people instead of basing it on what their job was? Just an idea.

        • sab@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • ivanafterall@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

        • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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

      • blueeggsandyam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • crusa187@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Natural born is a common misconception. Naturalized is sufficient - he can be president if he wants. 14th amendment clarifies this point.

        • geissi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • crusa187@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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!

            • geissi@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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?

              • crusa187@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

            • geissi@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

              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.

                • geissi@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

      • Jerkules_Jerkules@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As of now, yes. However, there are a lot of people in the US who would like to change the stipulation that naturalized citizens can not be president. So a push for this could pass, especially for someone like Schwarzenegger who is a republican and the right kind of immigrant.

    • BeefPiano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree that we don’t need more celebrities, but he has more government experience than the last guy. Not an endorsement, just showing he cleared the incredibly low bar.

  • Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve talked to a person IRL who didnt understand that Arnold is a US citizen, was the governor of California, but was born in Austria and cannot be president.

    To some people, they also think foreigners can’t be governors and were convinced one of his parents were American because he “looks American”

    It’s not necessarily related to this post, but a personal anecdote about my experiences with stupidity

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Meh. I like him better as a commentator. His run managing California wasn’t that great. That said, I think he’s a damn sight better than anything the conservatives have in line for president.

  • Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you hear Arnold on various podcasts, his ideas in general are pretty meathead.

    He talked about solving the lack of a House speaker by “Locking everyone in a room with no bathroom until they have a solution.”

    His solution for his child forgetting to turn off a light was to “Throw the mattress out of the window into the pool.”

    This is a dude who has more experience banging his fists demanding things than actually leading. Where I think he’ll do some progressive things, just like Reagan, he’ll do some thing that sounds good on paper but not at all researched and then fuck over the country for decades after their death.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      He talked about solving the lack of a House speaker by “Locking everyone in a room with no bathroom until they have a solution.”

      The solution the came up with? Piss.

    • CitizenKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, in the recent podcast with Rob Lowe there was a lot of “industry good, government bad” with an extra helping of “both sides are the same”. He was also praising Reagan several times. Arnie is a conservative boomer through and through.

      • ramble81@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a line in Demolition Man where they talk about the fact that Arnold becomes president after a change in laws that allows him to run. That’s what GP is referring to.