Republicans 2003: "Look! Arnold Schwarzenegger is now governor of California! That whole thing in the Constitution about the president having to have been born here is just an anachronism. It doesn't apply any more. We need to change it or ignore it or something so Arnold can run for President!"
Republicans 2003: "Look! Arnold Schwarzenegger is now governor of California! That whole thing in the Constitution about the president having to have been born here is just an anachronism. It doesn't apply any more. We need to change it or ignore it or something so Arnold can run for President!"
Republicans 2008: "Look! Obama was born in Kenya. Or Indonesia. Or someplace not America! He can't be president! Says so right here in the Constitution! [Pssst: John McCain was born in Panama, but that's like, totally different because, um, reasons, and uh, there's a squirrel outside!]"
Republicans 2012: Look, Obama was STILL born in not America, and he not American, and he's not my president. Now, to demonstrate our seriousness, Clint Eastwood will talk to this chair while Paul Ryan drinks all your Medicare."
Republicans 2032: "Look! Elon Musk wants to buy the presidency! That whole thing in the Constitution about the president having to have been born here is just an anachronism. It doesn't apply any more. We need to change it or ignore it or something so Elon can run for President!"
Christ, yes, Clint Eastwood and the chair. A good reminder that every time you think Republicans have hit rock bottom in terms of self-parody, they find a way to keep digging.
Your Party of Conservative Stability and Personal Responsibility, ladies and gentlemen.
To be fair, the requirement that Presidents be native-born is a stupid anachronism that should have been done away with long ago. I could see Republicans pushing this just to watch the Democrats - the supposedly pro-immigrant party - tie themselves in knots trying to explain why we shouldn't.
And, as usual, pointing out that the Republicans used to say the opposite of the thing they're saying now will have all the force of a mild fart in a stiff wind.
Do you really think Dems would be opposed, in large numbers? I mean, you and I agree that the native-born requirement could go away (I'd be happy with the same standards that senators have to meet, as a starting point, without the particular state residence requirement, obvs.), so that is a sample of two! One more and it's a trend! ;)
I just think getting anything over the really high hurdles of amending the Constitution these days is doomed to failure. I have mixed feelings about that.
No, I don't see how the Dems could oppose it. It sickens me to think of Elon Musk as the motivation and beneficiary, but there's no principled reason to oppose it.
I don't see Elon being taken seriously as a candidate for pres, at least not in 2024. I also don't see him being interested in running, come to that.
Yes, people will make the comparison to Trump, but come on. Elon is, by contrast, legitimately rich, successful, and happy, and has many paths forward to continued success. He's not, by any appearances, bitter, desperate to remain relevant, teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and so on.
"By contrast" is doing A LOT of work there, and "legitimate" is laughable: his wealth mostly derives from his parents' ill-gotten fortunes, & how he makes money now is not that different than DJT: con someone with money into investing in a flashy project that somehow never materializes.
I don't dispute that he started off on third base and sometimes acts like he hit a triple. But I dispute this: "flashy project that somehow never materializes." Both Tesla and SpaceX are legitimate companies that make and sell useful, tangible things, and both have bright futures. Also, he bankrolled these two companies, in part, due to previous actual successes: he started and grew two dot-com companies that he was able to sell for a considerable profit.
I don't mean to come off as a fanboy. I certainly don't want him to be president, just for starters. And I'll agree that he's often full of hype. But I maintain that it is no stretch to say that it's night and day, comparing him and Trump.
Okay. Let me repeat once more for the record (even though I suppose you won't believe it!): I am not an Elon Musk fanboy. The only point I have been trying to make in this thread is that he is quite different from Donald Trump. A better businessman, if by no other measure.
I do not think there is a fine line between saying this and being a fanboy of EM. It's just that in this case, the competition is so low.
Republicans 2003: "Look! Arnold Schwarzenegger is now governor of California! That whole thing in the Constitution about the president having to have been born here is just an anachronism. It doesn't apply any more. We need to change it or ignore it or something so Arnold can run for President!"
Republicans 2008: "Look! Obama was born in Kenya. Or Indonesia. Or someplace not America! He can't be president! Says so right here in the Constitution! [Pssst: John McCain was born in Panama, but that's like, totally different because, um, reasons, and uh, there's a squirrel outside!]"
Republicans 2012: Look, Obama was STILL born in not America, and he not American, and he's not my president. Now, to demonstrate our seriousness, Clint Eastwood will talk to this chair while Paul Ryan drinks all your Medicare."
Republicans 2032: "Look! Elon Musk wants to buy the presidency! That whole thing in the Constitution about the president having to have been born here is just an anachronism. It doesn't apply any more. We need to change it or ignore it or something so Elon can run for President!"
Christ, yes, Clint Eastwood and the chair. A good reminder that every time you think Republicans have hit rock bottom in terms of self-parody, they find a way to keep digging.
Your Party of Conservative Stability and Personal Responsibility, ladies and gentlemen.
Don't forget Republicans 2020-present: Kamala Harris and Birtherism 2.0
To be fair, the requirement that Presidents be native-born is a stupid anachronism that should have been done away with long ago. I could see Republicans pushing this just to watch the Democrats - the supposedly pro-immigrant party - tie themselves in knots trying to explain why we shouldn't.
And, as usual, pointing out that the Republicans used to say the opposite of the thing they're saying now will have all the force of a mild fart in a stiff wind.
Do you really think Dems would be opposed, in large numbers? I mean, you and I agree that the native-born requirement could go away (I'd be happy with the same standards that senators have to meet, as a starting point, without the particular state residence requirement, obvs.), so that is a sample of two! One more and it's a trend! ;)
I just think getting anything over the really high hurdles of amending the Constitution these days is doomed to failure. I have mixed feelings about that.
No, I don't see how the Dems could oppose it. It sickens me to think of Elon Musk as the motivation and beneficiary, but there's no principled reason to oppose it.
I don't see Elon being taken seriously as a candidate for pres, at least not in 2024. I also don't see him being interested in running, come to that.
Yes, people will make the comparison to Trump, but come on. Elon is, by contrast, legitimately rich, successful, and happy, and has many paths forward to continued success. He's not, by any appearances, bitter, desperate to remain relevant, teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and so on.
"By contrast" is doing A LOT of work there, and "legitimate" is laughable: his wealth mostly derives from his parents' ill-gotten fortunes, & how he makes money now is not that different than DJT: con someone with money into investing in a flashy project that somehow never materializes.
I don't dispute that he started off on third base and sometimes acts like he hit a triple. But I dispute this: "flashy project that somehow never materializes." Both Tesla and SpaceX are legitimate companies that make and sell useful, tangible things, and both have bright futures. Also, he bankrolled these two companies, in part, due to previous actual successes: he started and grew two dot-com companies that he was able to sell for a considerable profit.
I don't mean to come off as a fanboy. I certainly don't want him to be president, just for starters. And I'll agree that he's often full of hype. But I maintain that it is no stretch to say that it's night and day, comparing him and Trump.
It's a fine line, sir... "Well actually"-ing any discussion of Musk is how most fanboy convos start...
Okay. Let me repeat once more for the record (even though I suppose you won't believe it!): I am not an Elon Musk fanboy. The only point I have been trying to make in this thread is that he is quite different from Donald Trump. A better businessman, if by no other measure.
I do not think there is a fine line between saying this and being a fanboy of EM. It's just that in this case, the competition is so low.
Bonus points for the style of the Dick and Jane reader of my youth.
“Look, look! See Dick subvert the Constitution! Subvert, Dick, subvert!”
“Look, look! See Jane grift! Grift, Jane, grift!”
What about “Obama was a dirty muslim foreigner and we’re going to elect Elon to own the libs!”?
"Make Apartheid American Again 2024"
Always theBlack guy’s fault. #Heritage