Afshin Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 I hope most aren't just going for Arnold, because he was a movie star, but as sad as that is, most will Well it certainly seems to be a trend, it starts off in high school were the prom king and queen are selected on popularity and while cute at that stage becomes scary when it apply to leaders. Reagan was an actor, baby Bush qualifications, apart from drug use and drunk driving and almost flunking out of school was, my daddy was president and so everyone knows my name. And now we have Arnold, who despite having enjoyed his first 2 Terminator movies greatly, is less qualified that my neighbor to oversee a state with over 30 million people. The man did not even vote in most election for crying out loud, that's how experienced and involved he is in the political process, now he may be Governor of a state which is larger than most countries. How can you believe that someone who doesn’t vote over half of the time is really interested in the state and how it is run? God Damn that's scary. Anyways people hardly ever vote for a person, they vote for a party and maybe that's why no one knows anything about the candidate except there stance about a few stupid standard old arguments like gun control or meanigless new ones like license fees.... No one even knows Arnold's economic plan, including himself, but who cares, he won't give give driver licenses to illegal immigrants (great now I really know which of the idiots to vote for). But that seems irrelevant, he is famous, he is a republican end of story. 90% of democrats will defend Clinton no matter what he does and 95% of republicans will defend baby Bush or Arnold no matter what they do or know..... It's called bipartisan politics; which is pathetic. ( I guess I will be getting a lot of hate emails now , but remember this forum is for fun, please don't get too serious ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 Actually I kinda thought Arnold was more like Jessie Ventura. Economically conservative socially liberal. I think we are beginning to see more backlash against the parties, since both have their problems. Anyone who votes for Arnold because he is a Republican is going to get a surprise I think. I heard Richard Riordan on some news show last night talking about how he and Arnold agree that health care is the "God given right" of every American! I wonder how that will be worked out with the budget deficit... Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 7, 2003 Share Posted October 7, 2003 And now we have Arnold, who despite having enjoyed his first 2 Terminator movies greatly, is less qualified that my neighbor to oversee a state with over 30 million people. The official qualification requirements to run for gov in California: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/gov-qual.pdf To summarize, the candidate must be: 1. a US Citizen, 2. registered to vote, 3. meet minimum political party registriation standards if nominated by that party, 4. not have served two terms as gov. Seems to me that Arnold easily meets all of those requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted October 7, 2003 Author Share Posted October 7, 2003 Well it certainly seems to be a trend' date=' it starts off in high school were the prom king and queen are selected on popularity and while cute at that stage becomes scary when it apply to leaders. Reagan was an actor, baby Bush qualifications, apart from drug use and drunk driving and almost flunking out of school was, my daddy was president and so everyone knows my name. And now we have Arnold, who despite having enjoyed his first 2 Terminator movies greatly, is less qualified that my neighbor to oversee a state with over 30 million people. The man did not even vote in most election for crying out loud, that's how experienced and involved he is in the political process, now he may be Governor of a state which is larger than most countries. How can you believe that someone who doesn’t vote over half of the time is really interested in the state and how it is run? God Damn that's scary. Anyways people hardly ever vote for a person, they vote for a party and maybe that's why no one knows anything about the candidate except there stance about a few stupid standard old arguments like gun control or meanigless new ones like license fees.... No one even knows Arnold's economic plan, including himself, but who cares, he won't give give driver licenses to illegal immigrants (great now I really know which of the idiots to vote for). But that seems irrelevant, he is famous, he is a republican end of story. 90% of democrats will defend Clinton no matter what he does and 95% of republicans will defend baby Bush or Arnold no matter what they do or know..... It's called bipartisan politics; which is pathetic. ( I guess I will be getting a lot of hate emails now , but remember this forum is for fun, please don't get too serious )[/quote'] I know what you mean about the bipartisan politics. I try and inform people about Instant Run Off Voting as much as I can. We need it badly, or a different electoral system. Personally, I prefer IRV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afshin Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 To summarize, the candidate must be: 1. a US Citizen, 2. registered to vote, 3. meet minimum political party registriation standards if nominated by that party, 4. not have served two terms as gov. Seems to me that Arnold easily meets all of those requirements. The problem is that at least in my book, qualified to run is not the same as qualified to lead. My friendly neighbor (as myself) can easily qualify to run, but not necessarily to make final complicated decisions about multifaceted problems within a intricate system involving thousands of towns, school, billions of dollars, and millions of people …. Every decision has consequences, which Arnold or my neighbor are not experienced enough to fully comprehend. I may agree with my neighbors perpective on many things (he is a great guy), it does not mean that I am willing to put the faith of my state and millions of others in his hands. The point was that what it takes to win is fame and political party (democrat or republican) as opposed to more meaningful qualifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nic-Rebel450CA Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Just voted for Arnie! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted October 8, 2003 Author Share Posted October 8, 2003 No on recall and for Camejo (also a very savy businessman). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted October 8, 2003 Author Share Posted October 8, 2003 Welp...It looks like Arnold has it. Now its time to wait and see. Arnold has promised much, we'll have to see what happens. He's said very little on what he wants to do, so it is a big gamble. I just hope that none of you voted for him, because he was in "Terminator." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavyZ Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 ...I just hope that none of you voted for him, because he was in "Terminator." Davy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nic-Rebel450CA Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 No, I voted for him because he was in Terminator 2. (That was when he was the good guy) J/k, of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Want aZ Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Im just dissapointed that he didn't say: Gov Davis, You have been TERMINATED!!!! LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnc Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 The problem is that at least in my book, qualified to run is not the same as qualified to lead. But we've had a Gov that had a tremendous political resume and was perfectly qualified to lead. We have a Lt. Gov with almost as sterling a political resume. They both f$%#ed up and failed to lead. For the last 5 years California has been a progressive liberal's paradise! An unfettered experiment in liberalism where the Democratic leaders basically had carte blanche (legislative control and a $40B budget surplus) to build their socialist utopian ideal. They spent 5 years and $78B on the experiment and it failed. That's why someone like Arnold (a complete outsider) was elected. That's why someone like Davis (a complete insider) was given the boot. That's why a political hack like Bustamante was basically ignored at the polls - by his own party! Whether Arnold was the best possible candidate or not is irrelevant. He was the only electable candidate that promised change. He was the only electable candidate who's promises we could believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim240z Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 The problem is that at least in my book, qualified to run is not the same as qualified to lead. But we've had a Gov that had a tremendous political resume and was perfectly qualified to lead. We have a Lt. Gov with almost as sterling a political resume. They both f$%#ed up and failed to lead. For the last 5 years California has been a progressive liberal's paradise! An unfettered experiment in liberalism where the Democratic leaders basically had carte blanche (legislative control and a $40B budget surplus) to build their socialist utopian ideal. They spent 5 years and $78B on the experiment and it failed. That's why someone like Arnold (a complete outsider) was elected. That's why someone like Davis (a complete insider) was given the boot. That's why a political hack like Bustamante was basically ignored at the polls - by his own party! Whether Arnold was the best possible candidate or not is irrelevant. He was the only electable candidate that promised change. He was the only electable candidate who's promises we could believe. Very well put!! Eloquent as always Mr. C! 8) Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleeperZ Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 All I can say is "good luck", and I hope it turns out like you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave240Z Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Very well put!! Eloquent as always Mr. C! 8) Tim Agreed!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afshin Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Well I don't view qualified to lead as all that is needed to be worthy of my lowly vote, it is a minimum requirement. I don't see the logic in your argument, since Davis knew what he was doing but did a poor job, we should now turn against all that know what they are doing (i.e. have some idea on the process on how to run a state with 35 million people) and elect someone who is clueless? My point is not that Arnold is a bad guy, I actually have no idea who he is (politically). But talk is cheap, experience and a good record mean more (Davis is experience without a good record). He says he will increase funding to schools, not raise taxes and balance the budget. Boy do I have a bridge to sell you. Looking believable (which he sure does) does not make it any truer, he is an actor by trade. Here is an example let’s suppose that the CEO of a huge international multibillion dollar company with 800,000 workers in 60 locations screws up, so to replace him the board says the hell with all experienced people, every businessman is up to not good anyway, and then brings in a established ballet dancer who is respected but does not know anything about running a small company or even manage a factory (i.e. hold a small political position such as mayor) and never had an interest in the company (i.e. did not even bother to vote for the majority of elections). Maybe you wouldn’t question the wisdom of that choice, I certainly do. Who knows, maybe the dancer will do a good job even though odds are against him, would you gamble billions of dollars and 800,000 jobs and families on it? Obviously many have gambled much more. Whether Arnold was the best possible candidate or not is irrelevant. He was the only electable candidate that promised change Also being the most electable is not a reason, it is a poor excuse for not having a meaningful reason. Not being a qualified candidate is extremely relevant to me. I vote based on the combo of what my frontal cortex tells me and what I feel is best for all, not on politics of party or concepts of electability and winning. Some may call me an idealist, I call them sellouts (and I believe the founding father of this country would have agreed). I want government to be representative of the people, not the people to select based on the politics of a limited two party system. So you can accept whatever is given to you, or perhaps do something a little harder and aim high, even if it takes longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted October 8, 2003 Author Share Posted October 8, 2003 My biggest point with Davis is that a lot of the problems have had very little to do with him or the state government. There were some problems that could easily be tracked to Davis, but many other were beyond him or anyone's control for that matter. We'll see what Arnold does. He does have business experience, but he only promised change, not a hint at how he was going to do it. Don't be suprised if you see taxes go up, as they did under Reagan (even though most of his campaign stated he wanted to lower them). Oh...I also suggest looking at Davis' first term before the economy went bust, 9-11 happened, and a few other things. Not too many people had a problem with him then from what I recall (no pun intended 8) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oltmann Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 The governor has limited power to set policy in the state. His principle right is to stop the implementation of bad policy through the veto. So I don't see why you are so concerned about Arnold not having a detailed plan that he probably wouldn't be able to implement anyway. This recall was simply the fastest way to send a message to the legislators and to halt them in their tracks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 Boy,California is becoming as big a political joke as us over here in Louisiana. Arnold been here most all his freakin Shwartzenager life and still talks like hes got poop in his mouth for governor of the biggest state in the U.S. now thats a joke.................. <moderator> EDIT: a spelling error or not, its fixed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 8, 2003 Share Posted October 8, 2003 PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TELL ME THAT WAS A SPELLING ERROR!!! I'd hate to think otherwise... Haven't seen a real life bigot in quite a long time. Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.