Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
No, it could happen. The Democrats get the muslim, the atheist trans woman would be a right-libertarian candidate in the Republican primary who manages to win a state or so, then, the day before the convention, all the candidates but her die in a freak accident, so she runs uncontested and wins, to the shock of the Republican establishment.
I'm fairly certain the Muslim candidate would win in that instance since most of the Republican base would flat out refuse to vote in the election if that happened.
On a serious note having two minorities isn't impossible. I could see a woman winning the Republican nomination and there's always people like Rubio and Carson.
Lost in Space
You forgot to put "freak accident" in sarcasm quotes. ![[lol]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lol2v12_4863.png "[lol]"){kind=small}
The California Republican Party had a Hindu man of Indian ethnicity as our candidate for governor during the last election. Same party that gave us Schwarzenegger and Reagan.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Assassination by the only remaining candidate is a freak accident, right?
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
I don't get why these states keep trying it, the drug-tests-for-welfare thing has been ruled an invasion of privacy, has it not?
Because parasites and looters. Also because it costs more money than is saved to conduct drug tests on welfare recipients. If they can't remove welfare entirely, they can try to make it less efficient and thus make their "solutions" (or lack thereof) look good by comparison.
edited 27th Dec '14 11:51:14 AM by TrashJack
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
Totally get that, but the Florida one got knocked down in the courts, didn't it? It's a waste of money for the State of Michigan in more than one way, attempting to implement and then defending in court a law that's sure to fail the judicial test.
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Didn't the Florida guy turn out to own all the drug testing companies anyway?
Oh really when?
NOT THE BEES
One hopes, because like a third of them were Deists, as were most of the ones who got anything done.
edited 27th Dec '14 1:06:37 PM by Pykrete
Florida surpasses New York to become third most populous state.
Just found it interesting, even if everyone knew it was inevitable.
Let's just hope drug testing for welfare doesn't get to the Supreme Court, or we'll get something like:
"Of course drug testing for welfare recipients puts an undue burden on them. That's the point; maybe the lazy bums will all go out and get a real job if we make it hard enough for them."
Shameful Display
I guess it could be considered legal,but only if one considers receiving money from the government being a federal employee.
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.
More like giant cherries
Seeing as welfare isn't in the constitution, I don't think there's any particular cause to strike it down.
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play
Salute the freedom fairy! ._.7
Indeed; there's nothing in the constitution stating that the government is required to provide welfare or anything about it, meaning it's free to do whatever it wants with it unless it violates other parts of the constitution
"Your Sig is now charmingly out of date" — Vox, 7/6/2016
Never Trust
Or you could argue that since it's not mentioned in the Constitution it's a matter for individual states to worry about.
Trump delenda est
That's scary.
Fuck you, Fascist sympathizers
I think it's either the 14th amendment, or it counts as unreasonable search. One of the two, or some combination of them, creates a sort of constitutional right to privacy, not explicitly, but implicitly through judicial interpretation.
I think the idea is that you need probable cause to subject someone to a search, and merely the fact that someone is on the dole does not provide a reasonable cause to search them for substance abuse. Similarly under the 14th amendment that all citizens are treated equally before the law, a law cannot target one subset of the population, such as welfare recipients. Could also be the 15th amendment (designed to stop laws from targeting blacks, which is why the Jim Crow laws had to be so carefully structured to stand up in court)
Indiana Solo
@LSBK- Half of florida's New Yorkers who moved down there for the climate anyway 
Bird mom
Acting welfare IS in the constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
edited 28th Dec '14 10:27:25 AM by RhymeBeat
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.
The "welfare" there refers to general wellbeing not welfare systems.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Bird mom
Might was just being literal.
The Crystal Caverns A bird's gotta sing.
And yet, couldn't one also make that case that a welfare system helps promote the general welfare?
Now in actual news:
Michigan has become the latest U.S. state to approve the controversial practice of testing welfare recipients for substance abuse.
edited 27th Dec '14 10:50:35 AM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016