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
Arizona governor proposes hospital tax to fund Medicaid expansion
This is actually completely sane; have hospitals pay for a small part of the expansion by being taxed, have the rest of the expansion paid by the Feds, and hospitals more than recoup the tax money because the poor get their bills paid by Medicaid instead of going to the ER and refusing to pay. (The Mayo Clinic loses out, of course, because their business doesn't suffer from said drain and won't get any of these Medicaid dollars.)
Who are you and what have you done with Gov. Brewer?
![]()
Contrary to what some would have you believe, it is not a black and white situation, with "Take away all guns" on one side versus "Let us have all the guns we want" on the other. Many on the left are arguing for some restrictions on purchasing, research into the causes and prevention of violence, increased scrutiny of dealers, and additional resources for enforcement of existing laws. While a total gun ban is of course a thing that some desire, you won't find that position anywhere in the public platform of any major party, and at no point has there been even a hint of taking guns away from lawful owners.
On the other hand, there is a major party whose members uniformly oppose any restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever, and in fact want guns forced into the hands of people who don't want them. In order to make this position seem reasonable, they insist on painting it as a black and white, slippery slope conflict where ceding even an inch of ground to the other side will lead inexorably to federal agents (all 2,500 of them, mind you) marching across the country in custom-tailored jackboots to seize everyone's weapons so that King Obama can solidify his dictatorial rule.
In short, this is not a good faith debate, and never was. The right has no intention of compromising, which has been made all the more apparent by the lunatics who've appeared lately on TV and You Tube screaming about 1776 and demonstrating their peaceful right to bear arms by declaring their intent to murder anyone who looks at them funny.
edited 22nd Jan '13 7:58:46 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Here is an interesting article: Nearly 40 percent of House members represent a state which is not their birth one.
And it's not a symptom of our age, it's most of the older representatives who don't represent their birth states.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Interesting datum but without further analysis it's hard to see any meaning in the numbers. I'd expect older people to have moved more than younger people, in aggregate.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"There's been a lot of inter-state mobility since the mid-20th century, so that's not too surprising. In addition, there's almost certainly a correlation between political success and a certain degree of opportunism & ambition—and what sort of fellow is most likely to relocate for reasons of professional or political gain? That could have some minor effects on the numbers.
Well, what percentage of Americans old enough to be elected to Congress live outside their birth state*? Make sure to sort by demographic, as most Congressmen are upper class by wealth.
* Worth noting: I was born in a hospital in Maryland, but my family lived in Virginia at the time and I have therefore technically never resided in the state of my birth. Would I count?
edited 22nd Jan '13 9:11:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yes, I do not see what the big deal is. By the time I was in school I had already lived in 2 different states and I completed k-12 in one state. Does that make it more proper to be elected in the state that I had spent maybe 6 months of my life in than the state I spent my entire primary and secondary education in?
An increasing number of recent Presidents have also been born in different states than the ones they're commonly considered to "hail from." Reagan and Ford are respectively associated with California and Michigan, but both men were born in Illinois. Obama the Chicago pol was born in Hawaii. Again, this seems to follow more general demographic trends.
edited 22nd Jan '13 12:49:53 PM by Jhimmibhob
And his brother Jeb was born in Texas, but became Governor of Florida.
Bill Clinton represented Arkansas as Governor and then President, then became a Senator of New York.
Ah-nuld obviously was born in Austria and then became Governor of California.
I don't think the US has the perception for a political requirement for people to be born in the state of their constituents. There's still a fairly sizable spirit of migration across the nation. The only requirement that I'm aware of is for the President and Vice President to be born in the United States, and even that has much debate surrounding it.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!I'm not sure it has all that much debate. There may be some people arguing for the requirement to be waived, but it would require amending the Constitution and there's no political will to accomplish such a task at present. There is a fringe conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States (see "birthers"), but nobody in the mainstream takes them seriously.
The only real debate that I've seen is in regards to politicians who take up official residence in a state specifically so that they can run for national office in that state, without any real attachment to its people. For example, Hillary Clinton was accused of doing it in New York.
edited 22nd Jan '13 12:51:21 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
Hillary was a Senator. Bill never went back into politics after leaving the White House, or well not directly.
And Hillary is also an example; being born in Illinois.
edited 22nd Jan '13 1:07:02 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Hmmmm lets see since FDR,...
FDR (D): From New York,represented New York (Yes)
Truman (D): From Missouri, represented Missouri (Yes)
Eisenhower (R): From Texas, represented New York (No)
Kennedy (D): From Massachusetts,represented Massachusetts (Yes)
Johnson (D): From Texas,represented Texas (Yes)
Nixon (R): From California, represented California (Yes)
Ford (R): From Illinois, represented Michigan (No)
Carter (D): From Georgia, represented Georgia (Yes)
Reagan (R): From Illinois, represented California (No)
Bush (R): From Massachusetts, represented Texas (No)
Clinton (D): From Arkansas, represented Arkansas (Yes)
Dubya (R): From Connecticut, represented Texas (No)
Obama (D): From Hawaii, represented Illinois (No)
So there you have it,Obama is the first Dem not represent his birth state,...and Nixon is the only Republican to represent his birth state.
And of course, children will move around with their families. My parents moved twice before I was 5. I only lived in my birth state until I was three.
Of course, members of Congress only have to be a resident of the state that they represent at the time of their election. There is nothing to legally prevent a resident of North Carolina from moving to Wyoming a week before the election and then being elected to Congress. Hillary Clinton went straight from the White House to the Senate. I guess technically she was a resident of New York State because she bought a house in Chappaqua there in late 1999 after deciding to run.
edited 22nd Jan '13 1:49:51 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.In which case, Hillary Clinton's campaign is known for being accused of carpet-bagging. She came in for virtually little time, but made a point of visiting every county in New York to hear what it was that they wanted.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Some states do have minimum residency requirements, I believe. (And Hillary Clinton would be far from the first Senator to be accused of carpetbagging.)
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Any further restrictions on the qualifications for members of Congress would be unconstitutional. Neither the States nor the Congress can define qualifications for members by statute; that would conflict with the Constitution. They can't even require that a Representative actually live in his home district.
Now it does get different when we talk about State legislatures. Many states do require that their legislators live in their home districts, for a certain definition of "live in".
edited 22nd Jan '13 2:11:36 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Good point about the Constitutionality of additional requirements. I forgot about that.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Umm, what? That article is so poorly written that it could be taken as a textbook example of inflammatory journalism. Yes, if terrorists got their hands on drones, they might use them to attack the President. And if they got their hands on nuclear bombs, they could use them to blow up Washington. And if they got their hands on magic space death rays, they might use them to murder kittens... and the President.
Yes, we get it, drones are Teh Evulz and Obama is Teh Mad Dictatorz for using them instead of manned aircraft. Can we get over this paranoid fearmongering please? It's unbecoming of rational people.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And before that, Hitler killed a bunch of people. Besides, who's ignoring these warnings? Sounds like the U.S. continues to invest a great deal in air defenses. You can't fly a kite around Washington, DC without an Air Force interceptor on your ass.
Anyway, technology can't be put back in the bottle. If we didn't develop drones first, China or Russia would. Same with nukes, same with chemical agents, same with biological warfare. Same with guns. Same with airplanes, and ships, and tanks, and grenades, and every means anyone has ever invented to kill people.
Your attempt to turn this into a personal indictment of Obama is, quite frankly, transparent and insulting.
edited 22nd Jan '13 3:05:15 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

In the above example, the assumption being made of the email campaign is that giving in to gun control support is akin to allowing the Government to take away the right to bear arms for lawful defense. The far other side simply points to individual acts of horror as a means to say that because a few people are irresponsible, that no one should have this ability. It's a False Dichotomy, is it not?
As long as there is no intelligent debate, and the more assumptions being made by either side, there is no reason to compromise, as usual.
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!