Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:It's just another fucking job, and it shouldn't matter where you were born. Give me a single rational reason for disqualifying the Second Coming of Christ or anybody else for that matter.

Tradition. You want someone who has this country's interest at heart (besides being born here, would like someone who has lived here for at least 20 years or would you prefer someone else to govern such as Hitler or ISIS?) It's to help ensure we have the best candidate around.

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:In a democracy, people are more than capable of judging candidates. There should be no restrictions on who can be elected to any office.

Then why is there no direct vote for the US President? (the excuse I heard was the public is uninformed on the candidates).

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:Technically, the voters vote for electors, who cast their ballots, but the results are always the same.

The electors are free to cast their votes any way they want and there have been a few who went their own way in the past, but traditionally the electoral college has reflected the will of the voting public.There are other weaknesses in the election process (e.g. gerrymandering).

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:It's just another fucking job, and it shouldn't matter where you were born. Give me a single rational reason for disqualifying the Second Coming of Christ or anybody else for that matter.

To increase the odds that a president will not owe first allegience to another Nation … such as one in which the religion trumps the Constitution.

bobevenson wrote:Nobody owes allegiance to any country; it's the government that owes allegiance to the people; and requiring that a president be native-born is a crime against humanity.

How so Bob? That's a sort of crime I'm in favor of. Since it's in the Constitution, then how is it a crime?

Phil

AEP?

bobevenson wrote:Nobody owes allegiance to any country; it's the government that owes allegiance to the people; and requiring that a president be native-born is a crime against humanity.

The US. The only nation I know of where children pledge allegiance to it every single day. Is that because pledges aren't taken seriously in the US? Is the pledge not viable past midnight?
BTW Bob. I agree with you on this matter... Weird feeling, that is...

Dalek Prime wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Nobody owes allegiance to any country; it's the government that owes allegiance to the people; and requiring that a president be native-born is a crime against humanity.

The US. The only nation I know of where children pledge allegiance to it every single day. Is that because pledges aren't taken seriously in the US? Is the pledge not viable past midnight?
BTW Bob. I agree with you on this matter... Weird feeling, that is...

You're supposed to put your hand over your heart when you say the pledge. But that little ritual is being progressively chipped at, one chip at a time. Three steps forward, two back, but always progressively forward to ... what?

.





A U.S. President must be native-born. We don't want people that were born in Canada or other places, that might even have had a father that was a raging communist, running for the highest office in America.
~~~ Donald Trump ~~~





.............................................................................








.