Arnold Schwarzenegger for President

[Broomstick]

Regrettably, The Arnold can't be the PotUS due to the rule about being a natural born citizen. Also, he's on record as not wanting to hold public office again. But two recent video bits by Mr. Schwarzenegger are quite pertinent to current events.

First, Trump took a jab at Arnold (sorry, but I do find his first name a lot easier to spell) in a way I thought completely uncalled for. And Arnold responded in a manner that shows why quite a few people like this guy, even if he is far from perfect himself.



And here is a more nuanced bit from Arnold regarding immigration (from someone who has himself been through the system) and governance (he does, after all, have experience in governing, and contrary to what Trump has stated Arnold's term as governor went pretty well).

[Elheru Aran]

Haven't there already been a couple of movements to change the native-born thing? Pretty sure at least one of those was more or less directly inspired by Schwarzenegger.

That said, he seems like a pretty decent guy, but running him in an election would be dangerous given his playboy-ish past and the highly public scandal of his affair and extramarital child a few years ago.

Of course, Trump is no angel, either... and Arnold would be FAR more Presidential than Trump, to say the least.

[Flagg]

I wouldn't vote for him. But if Ted "Born in Canada to an American living there and a Cuban national" Cruz (which is the exact situation President Pussygrabber said was the case with Obama, his American mother giving birth to him in Kenya with a Kenyan father, all a lie) can run for and apparently be considered a natural born citizen of the US I don't think that Amendment applies. So dump it and Obama can crush Donnie Douchebag in 2020 with a third term being possible.

[Broomstick]

Haven't there already been a couple of movements to change the native-born thing? Pretty sure at least one of those was more or less directly inspired by Schwarzenegger.

Yes. Including a movie reference (Demolition Man). Like everything else in the constitution it could be changed in theory, and I think Arnold's popularity might be sufficient to change it - IF he wanted to go through all that.

That said, he seems like a pretty decent guy, but running him in an election would be dangerous given his playboy-ish past and the highly public scandal of his affair and extramarital child a few years ago.

As compared to.... Bill Clinton's past? Schwarzenegger's dirty laundry has the advantage of having been aired. It's not like thousands of other politicians (and millions of other men) haven't done similar things. I don't approve of some of his past actions but then I don't expect people to be saints. At least he's made provisions for his extramarital child, which is better than a lot of men have done. Arnold has also shown some capacity for admitting he can be a jerk and for admitting his mistakes, something the current PotUS seems incapable of doing.

Of course, Trump is no angel, either... and Arnold would be FAR more Presidential than Trump, to say the least.

My point exactly.

[Flagg]

Haven't there already been a couple of movements to change the native-born thing? Pretty sure at least one of those was more or less directly inspired by Schwarzenegger.

Yes. Including a movie reference (Demolition Man). Like everything else in the constitution it could be changed in theory, and I think Arnold's popularity might be sufficient to change it - IF he wanted to go through all that.

That said, he seems like a pretty decent guy, but running him in an election would be dangerous given his playboy-ish past and the highly public scandal of his affair and extramarital child a few years ago.

As compared to.... Bill Clinton's past? Schwarzenegger's dirty laundry has the advantage of having been aired. It's not like thousands of other politicians (and millions of other men) haven't done similar things. I don't approve of some of his past actions but then I don't expect people to be saints. At least he's made provisions for his extramarital child, which is better than a lot of men have done. Arnold has also shown some capacity for admitting he can be a jerk and for admitting his mistakes, something the current PotUS seems incapable of doing.

Of course, Trump is no angel, either... and Arnold would be FAR more Presidential than Trump, to say the least.

My point exactly.

Arnold and Bill Clinton are both guilty of sexual assault, the difference being that Bill suffered a penalty and Arnold won a gubernatorial election when he essentially admitted it at a rally, promised an investigation, then once elected killed the investigation. So I wouldn't vote for him based on that alone, and that's ignoring his ties to Nazis.

[Broomstick]

My understanding, which is likely imperfect, is that Arnold himself was never a Nazi and the primary reason he's connected to the Nazis is because his father joined the party in 1938 - as did millions of of other people and, let's be real here, being a party member made your family safer during WWII than not joining. Schwarzenegger asked the Simon Wiesenthal Center to research his father and there was never any evidence found that Gustav Schwarzenegger was involved in any sort of atrocity during the war years. If you're going to condemn him for that you might as well brand anyone of Austrian or German descent today as unacceptable. Frankly, I find judging a person based on what his parents did to be unacceptable but maybe that's just me.

My reference to his unsavory conduct was mainly in reference to past accusations of sexual harassment which is about the same as what you get from many professional athletes, actors, celebrities, and other guys and which he now admits was unacceptable and disrespectful behavior. He fathered an illegitimate child with Mildred Baena. I have never heard that Baena accused him of rape. The man who was Baena's husband at the time is pretty pissed about the whole thing and last I heard was planning to sue Schwarzeneggar. Apparently Baena let everyone think Mr. Baena was the father and didn't tell Arnold that the kid was his and it was only after the kid grew up some and started resembling Arnold rather than Mr. Baena that the beans got spilled. The point here being that that seemed to be a mutually consensual affair. Schwarzeneggar admitted he screwed up there and has assumed financial responsibility for his former housekeeper and the son he had by her without having to be dragged through court and forced to so.

Now, I am not aware of any outright accusations of rape, although there have been plenty of rumors of affairs and harassment because, as I've already stated, he's admitted he could be a jerk and an asshole in the past. If you know of any please provide a cite so I'm not wandering around in ignorance here.

Yeah, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape are all bad. They are also all depressingly common, including among government officials. If we excluded every man who had ever been guilty of any of the above there'd be few to no men in government (which might be a good thing.... but it's not like female politicians are saints, either). I'd rather have a man who admits he's been in the wrong and attempted to make some amends than an unrepentant pussy-grabber.

[Flagg]

My understanding, which is likely imperfect, is that Arnold himself was never a Nazi and the primary reason he's connected to the Nazis is because his father joined the party in 1938 - as did millions of of other people and, let's be real here, being a party member made your family safer during WWII than not joining. Schwarzenegger asked the Simon Wiesenthal Center to research his father and there was never any evidence found that Gustav Schwarzenegger was involved in any sort of atrocity during the war years. If you're going to condemn him for that you might as well brand anyone of Austrian or German descent today as unacceptable. Frankly, I find judging a person based on what his parents did to be unacceptable but maybe that's just me.

My reference to his unsavory conduct was mainly in reference to past accusations of sexual harassment which is about the same as what you get from many professional athletes, actors, celebrities, and other guys and which he now admits was unacceptable and disrespectful behavior. He fathered an illegitimate child with Mildred Baena. I have never heard that Baena accused him of rape. The man who was Baena's husband at the time is pretty pissed about the whole thing and last I heard was planning to sue Schwarzeneggar. Apparently Baena let everyone think Mr. Baena was the father and didn't tell Arnold that the kid was his and it was only after the kid grew up some and started resembling Arnold rather than Mr. Baena that the beans got spilled. The point here being that that seemed to be a mutually consensual affair. Schwarzeneggar admitted he screwed up there and has assumed financial responsibility for his former housekeeper and the son he had by her without having to be dragged through court and forced to so.

Now, I am not aware of any outright accusations of rape, although there have been plenty of rumors of affairs and harassment because, as I've already stated, he's admitted he could be a jerk and an asshole in the past. If you know of any please provide a cite so I'm not wandering around in ignorance here.

Yeah, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and rape are all bad. They are also all depressingly common, including among government officials. If we excluded every man who had ever been guilty of any of the above there'd be few to no men in government (which might be a good thing.... but it's not like female politicians are saints, either). I'd rather have a man who admits he's been in the wrong and attempted to make some amends than an unrepentant pussy-grabber.

He had Nazis at his wedding to Skeletor and praised Hitler, though the Hitler thing was when he was young and roided out.

He's also has numerous women claiming he would grope them and penetrate them with his digits against their will. And he all but admitted at at a rally saying "where there is smoke there is fire" (which, being Republicans they clapped uproariously because they are all fucking stupid). I admire his stance on Global Climate Change, but I'm not going to support someone who used the office he was elected to to cover up his criminal misdeeds.

[Ziggy Stardust]

He had Nazis at his wedding to Skeletor and praised Hitler, though the Hitler thing was when he was young and roided out.

He didn't have Nazis at his wedding. He invited Kurt Waldheim to his wedding (notably, the invitations for the wedding went out BEFORE the public scandal related to his Nazi past being uncovered - also, notably, Waldheim didn't actually attend, either). Considering that Kurt Waldheim was also Secretary General of the fucking United Nations, I don't think it's fair to label anyone who has associated with him as being a Nazi sympathizer. If nothing else you had to admit it comes with a huge asterisk. I don't know enough about the rest of the incidents you are talking about, but the wedding thing stands out to me.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, I can't say I like Arnold as a politician (as an actor he's fine), or that I can ever respect anyone who still calls themselves a Republican at this point (my view is that while its wrong to judge people on associations they didn't choose, or on broad stereotypes, if you choose to identify with a specific party that morally bankrupt, you deserve to be judged along with the rest of them).

But if it was a choice between him and the Donald, I'd vote for President Terminator in a heart beat.

[Flagg]

He had Nazis at his wedding to Skeletor and praised Hitler, though the Hitler thing was when he was young and roided out.

He didn't have Nazis at his wedding. He invited Kurt Waldheim to his wedding (notably, the invitations for the wedding went out BEFORE the public scandal related to his Nazi past being uncovered - also, notably, Waldheim didn't actually attend, either). Considering that Kurt Waldheim was also Secretary General of the fucking United Nations, I don't think it's fair to label anyone who has associated with him as being a Nazi sympathizer. If nothing else you had to admit it comes with a huge asterisk. I don't know enough about the rest of the incidents you are talking about, but the wedding thing stands out to me.

Ahh, my mistake, then. I got bad information about it 10 years ago from (what I thought) was an intelligent and knowledgeable person who was pro Arnie, so I figured it was correct. Never trust people on the internet without fact-checking, kids.

[Simon_Jester]

You know, I can't say I like Arnold as a politician (as an actor he's fine), or that I can ever respect anyone who still calls themselves a Republican at this point (my view is that while its wrong to judge people on associations they didn't choose, or on broad stereotypes, if you choose to identify with a specific party that morally bankrupt, you deserve to be judged along with the rest of them).

I think that at a bare minimum, you should make exceptions for:

1) Republicans who chose not to vote for Trumpolini because they couldn't stomach him. I know at least one, and he lives in a traditional swing state so he knew his vote might matter. And also...

2) Single-issue abortion voters who think any Republican administration is good because they honestly believe that several hundred thousand babies get murdered in this country every year due to Roe v. Wade. Because while you might say that someone who believes that is wrong as a matter of fact, it's not like they don't have an understandable motive for their votes. It would be very hard to say "on utilitarian grounds, voting for several million dead babies between now and 2025 is less bad than voting for Trump." Trump is really, really bad, but a reasonable person could think that several million dead babies is worse

I feel there are other categories, but I don't want to argue for them at this time.

[The Romulan Republic]

I get the point, but single issue voters tend to be destructive in general- see the single issue anti-Clinton/anti-"establishment" types who helped ensure Trump's win because they literally couldn't see past "Both sides are the same, vote third party!" and see that one of the sides was fascist and the other was not.

I suppose I could empathize somewhat with a Republican who stays in the party to try to influence things at the primary level (a reason why I became a registered Democrat rather than staying an independent). But honestly, I think the Republican Party was broken before Trump, that the ship probably sailed for internal Republican reform a while ago, and at some point, you're just deluding yourself, and being complicit in a broken organization.

[Simon_Jester]

I get the point, but single issue voters tend to be destructive in general- see the single issue anti-Clinton/anti-"establishment" types who helped ensure Trump's win because they literally couldn't see past "Both sides are the same, vote third party!" and see that one of the sides was fascist and the other was not.

Do you mean to to tell me that if you actually believed several million people were being directly, deliberately killed per decade by a government policy, you might be considering voting for the candidate who supports that policy?

That's actually kind of unnerving.

[The Romulan Republic]

I get the point, but single issue voters tend to be destructive in general- see the single issue anti-Clinton/anti-"establishment" types who helped ensure Trump's win because they literally couldn't see past "Both sides are the same, vote third party!" and see that one of the sides was fascist and the other was not.

Do you mean to to tell me that if you actually believed several million people were being directly, deliberately killed per decade by a government policy, you might be considering voting for the candidate who supports that policy?

That's actually kind of unnerving.

No, when you put it that way, I don't think I would. Its kind of hard for me to really identify with the thought process of someone who literally thinks that abortion is comparable to the Holocaust, though.

The thing is... you can argue that abortion is killing. I'm not an expert on the biology involved, but even if a fetus hasn't developed to the point of having a fully-functional mind, it is still a living organism that has has all the genetic material of a human being (and I'd be extremely wary of setting intelligence level as the criteria for being a person). Abortion is always a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, though. Because even if you consider it killing, then you're forced with picking a lesser of two evils between killing millions, and violating the Constitution and the individual liberty, bodily autonomy, and physical safety of millions. That's... a really shitty choice. Which is why we get politicians who say that they personally oppose abortion, but believe its their duty as government officials to defend it anyway. This shit is part of why I loath debating abortion (the other part being that its long been an incredibly polarizing topic that tends to bring out the worst in both sides).

I remember the Kaine vs. Pence VP debate, and as I recall, both mens' answers on this topic were very interesting. While I disagree with Pence's politics on the issue, I respected that he appeared to sincerely believe in his moral position on the issue. While Kaine gave the only answer I believe he (as a Catholic running for political office) could ethically give, which was basically that its his duty to uphold it regardless of his personal views.

But this is a digression, and the point still stands that people who obsess on a single issue get tunnel vision, which leads to them being unable to see these kinds of nuances to the issue.

[Simon_Jester]

No, when you put it that way, I don't think I would. Its kind of hard for me to really identify with the thought process of someone who literally thinks that abortion is comparable to the Holocaust, though.

If someone actually thinks that personhood begins at conception... then to them, it kind of is.

You can say they're factually wrong. I know I do. But it's not an unsympathetic position, to think abortion is that important an issue.

But this is a digression, and the point still stands that people who obsess on a single issue get tunnel vision, which leads to them being unable to see these kinds of nuances to the issue.

I don't disagree. But I can very much sympathize with anyone who points to this particular issue and says "What nuance? Several million dead babies is not a nuanced thing!"

I can only disagree with them about the facts, not with the direction their moral compass points.

[Flagg]

I get the point, but single issue voters tend to be destructive in general- see the single issue anti-Clinton/anti-"establishment" types who helped ensure Trump's win because they literally couldn't see past "Both sides are the same, vote third party!" and see that one of the sides was fascist and the other was not.

Do you mean to to tell me that if you actually believed several million people were being directly, deliberately killed per decade by a government policy, you might be considering voting for the candidate who supports that policy?

That's actually kind of unnerving.

Hypothetically, if human fetuses become viable due to changes in medical technology we'd have to have artificial wombs by the thousands running "Matrix" style. But when they are "born", what the fuck do we do with them?

[The Romulan Republic]

No, when you put it that way, I don't think I would. Its kind of hard for me to really identify with the thought process of someone who literally thinks that abortion is comparable to the Holocaust, though.

If someone actually thinks that personhood begins at conception... then to them, it kind of is.

You can say they're factually wrong. I know I do. But it's not an unsympathetic position, to think abortion is that important an issue.

But this is a digression, and the point still stands that people who obsess on a single issue get tunnel vision, which leads to them being unable to see these kinds of nuances to the issue.

I don't disagree. But I can very much sympathize with anyone who points to this particular issue and says "What nuance? Several million dead babies is not a nuanced thing!"

I can only disagree with them about the facts, not with the direction their moral compass points.

Fair enough.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic. Like I said, I find abortion an incredibly difficult issue myself.

My real contempt is directed at the people on the Christian Right who oppose abortion, say its murder, and also oppose anything (like sex ed., birth control, and greater support for single mothers) that would actually decrease the number of abortions without violating anyone's rights.

Their stupid little self-defeating crusade would be amusing, if it wasn't so tragic and destructive.

Edit: Sadly, that's probably most of the Republican Party. Which brings me back to "The Republican Party is irredeemably broken".

[Gandalf]

You know, I can't say I like Arnold as a politician (as an actor he's fine), or that I can ever respect anyone who still calls themselves a Republican at this point (my view is that while its wrong to judge people on associations they didn't choose, or on broad stereotypes, if you choose to identify with a specific party that morally bankrupt, you deserve to be judged along with the rest of them).

I think that at a bare minimum, you should make exceptions for:

1) Republicans who chose not to vote for Trumpolini because they couldn't stomach him. I know at least one, and he lives in a traditional swing state so he knew his vote might matter. And also...

This makes little sense to me. If one wears the label of an organisation doing reprehensible things, they why don't they get some of the scorn?

2) Single-issue abortion voters who think any Republican administration is good because they honestly believe that several hundred thousand babies get murdered in this country every year due to Roe v. Wade. Because while you might say that someone who believes that is wrong as a matter of fact, it's not like they don't have an understandable motive for their votes. It would be very hard to say "on utilitarian grounds, voting for several million dead babies between now and 2025 is less bad than voting for Trump." Trump is really, really bad, but a reasonable person could think that several million dead babies is worse

What difference does it make if they voted using a single issue, all of the issues, or a dice roll? They cast a vote which helped to put Trump in the big chair.

[Ralin]

Hypothetically, if human fetuses become viable due to changes in medical technology we'd have to have artificial wombs by the thousands running "Matrix" style.

I've always kinda wondered what it would be like if that became a viable and affordable option. Seems like it would be a big equalizer for women. Can't help but think we'd be a lot closer to it being viable if men got pregnant (outside of a few transgender outliers).

But when they are "born", what the fuck do we do with them?

Same as we do with all the other unwanted kids, I guess.

No reason we can't stick one or both parents with child support payments!

[The Romulan Republic]

You've got to admit, as much as I hate the celebrification of politics, Ahnold would have the best campaign slogans.

Ahnold 2020: Vote for me if you want to live! (which could be depressingly accurate if he ran against Trump).

And for his re-election campaign:

Ahnold 2024: I'll be back!

[Simon_Jester]

This makes little sense to me. If one wears the label of an organisation doing reprehensible things, they why don't they get some of the scorn?

Because their only 'vice' is not immediately throwing away the name of the party in reaction to recent events. Believe it or not, the majority of Americans don't see "Republican" and "poisonous snake" as being equivalent terms.

Has the party become something toxic? Yes. Was it always? No. Even if I think they're wrong, that doesn't translate into "you always deserved derision for believing this."

If the Republican Party evolves as I foresee it evolving, this fellow I respect probably will abandon it in disgust some day. But I cannot expect him to abandon his allegiance overnight, especially since there is no other organization in American politics that is even trying to pick up that allegiance.

2) Single-issue abortion voters who think any Republican administration is good because they honestly believe that several hundred thousand babies get murdered in this country every year due to Roe v. Wade. Because while you might say that someone who believes that is wrong as a matter of fact, it's not like they don't have an understandable motive for their votes. It would be very hard to say "on utilitarian grounds, voting for several million dead babies between now and 2025 is less bad than voting for Trump." Trump is really, really bad, but a reasonable person could think that several million dead babies is worse

What difference does it make if they voted using a single issue, all of the issues, or a dice roll? They cast a vote which helped to put Trump in the big chair.

Someone who sincerely believes they face the choices "vote Trump" or "several million dead babies," and votes Trump as a consequence...

The consequences of their actions may be bad. I may disagree with them about the facts. But that is not an unsympathetic position. If you can't sympathize with that position, you are sorely lacking in imagination.

[Gandalf]

Because their only 'vice' is not immediately throwing away the name of the party in reaction to recent events. Believe it or not, the majority of Americans don't see "Republican" and "poisonous snake" as being equivalent terms.

That's ok. Lots of Americans also think that the Earth is younger than ten thousand years old. Up until fifty years ago, lots probably thought someone like me shouldn't have been able to vote either.

Has the party become something toxic? Yes. Was it always? No. Even if I think they're wrong, that doesn't translate into "you always deserved derision for believing this."

If the Republican Party evolves as I foresee it evolving, this fellow I respect probably will abandon it in disgust some day. But I cannot expect him to abandon his allegiance overnight, especially since there is no other organization in American politics that is even trying to pick up that allegiance.

Allegiance to a political party? Does he also pledge allegiance to his favourite cola? Is there a blood ritual involved? I thought that in a democracy, parties had an allegiance to their voters, not the other way around.

Someone who sincerely believes they face the choices "vote Trump" or "several million dead babies," and votes Trump as a consequence...

The consequences of their actions may be bad. I may disagree with them about the facts. But that is not an unsympathetic position. If you can't sympathize with that position, you are sorely lacking in imagination.

Why does it matter if the position is "sympathetic" or not? A vote is cast, it has an effect. There's no space on the ballot for conditions or qualifiers.

[Simon_Jester]

Just out of curiosity, are you in the habit of morally condemning people who make a distasteful choice because they believe the alternatives are worse? What's your philosophical basis for doing so?

[Zaune]

But if it was a choice between him and the Donald, I'd vote for President Terminator in a heart beat.

An actual T-800 would probably be an improvement on The Donald.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not much that wouldn't be, really. At least the Terminator would understand military policy.