Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Urist Imiknorris]

You also gave us Justin Beiber.

[Max White]

And Shania Twain.
But on the plus side, Michael Buble.

[lue]

As long as you are given U.S. citizenship at birth, you're good to go. I personally would change the law so that if you weren't born a citizen, you must first become one, and maybe spend 2 additional years in the US on top of the existing requirement or something.

Oy.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution sets the requirements to hold office. A president must:

• be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
• be at least thirty-five years old;
• have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

The Constitution states they must be a "Natural Born Citizen", which has never been fully addressed. I personally favor the "Born in America" argument, because it would exclude Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz was born in Alberta, adding another name to a long distinguished, list of terrible people Canada has foisted on the US.

It may have never been explicitly addressed, but it's long been understood that it means what I said. (See blockquote in lead section of that link.) With both the 1790 act all the way to that 2011 blockquote. Since this defines whether or not I could run for POTUS, I would know a thing or two about this. People like George Romney being allowed to run for President makes the currently understood meaning pretty clear.

(And obviously, I would oppose vehemently the "Born in the US" view. It's moronic no matter what justification you can dream up, IMO.)

[Chaoswizkid]

The mention of a "fine" took me some digging to find what they were actually talking about, but it seems to be general IRS fines for not complying to 501(c) standards (which could also result in shutting them down) and an additional $50,000 fine for failing to comply with standards regarding the community needs assessments.

Though I have to admit, this one amuses me a bit. Blaming the ACA for the organizations being hit by the IRS for evidently lying on their taxes (some of them before the ACA came into effect) is kinda' hilarious

It's blaming the ACA because the ACA causes the changes that would end up having the hospitals no longer comply with 501(c) standards.

Also, the article state that for-profit hospitals give a similar amount of free care to non-profit hospital (3.2 against 3.7%).

Keep in mind that that is only for hospitals in the state of California. That information also wasn't cited, so I went digging for the GAO article. I found one here, but it doesn't have the information they discussed so I'll have to dig later.

Honestly, are you really opposing the ACA because it's going to make people so much better than charities won't have enough people to help anymore?

I'm not necessarily opposed to the ACA. I haven't educated myself on all of the ins and outs. There's just a lot of scary stuff being thrown around, and one side decrying it as something very harmful is equally as scary as the other side whispering, "Don't worry, everything will be fine." The end result is that I'm highly skeptic of the ACA. I plan on really looking through the whole thing soon, though. Still, I feel like I'd prefer almost any other version of "affordable" healthcare than "mandatory insurance". Our healthcare costs are just astronomically high because a necessary facet of our society has been allowed to run rampant with pricing. Mandatory insurance just places that burden on the taxpayers who already have the burden of having to deal with ridiculous medical expenses.

Also, there has been a trend in retail companies forcing their employees from full-time to part-time as a preemptive measure to get out of providing healthcare when the ACA goes into effect. That's pretty damaging, but maybe they'll be covered by federal subsidies. Problem is, since they employ a lot of people, that might mean more subsidies from the government, meaning that it could be an even heavier drain.


Other stuff about the ACA: I'm not satisfied with their answers about the unemployed. Looking up information about how the unemployed will be covered, they rely on the same system as those who are employed who will get federal subsidies, and that the federal subsidies will just subtract from what you owe, not actually cover it (granted from what I've read they haven't specified if the subtraction will or will not result in a zero, but there's nothing to suggest that it does). Then, you have a three-month grace period where you can try and get your shit together to pay the money before you're involuntarily kicked off of insurance. After that, you're fined for not having insurance, and if you're kicked off of insurance because you owe medical bills, then I don't think you can get other insurance until those bills are paid, meaning you're fined forever until those bills are paid. That sounds like it will really fuck up some people, so I'm hoping that the system doesn't work the way I just described (which I pulled from that Technical Explanation from Congress .pdf I linked earlier).

Also, goodness is it liberal in here. Do we not have any Republicans or conservatives on Bay12 or have they all been scared off?

[RedKing]

So is there any reason why Hillary would run instead of Biden for next presidency? I mean you guys don't get preferential voting, so two rival democrats is suicide.

Because just saying President Joe Biden is nearly impossible without laughing. He's currently polling about 10% support among likely Dem voters, IIRC.


As far as the citizenship thing, no one talks about the dirty little secret that George Washington was not a natural born citizen. In fact, our first seven Presidents were not natural-born citizens of the United States.

[darkrider2]

So is there any reason why Hillary would run instead of Biden for next presidency? I mean you guys don't get preferential voting, so two rival democrats is suicide.

Because just saying President Joe Biden is nearly impossible without laughing. He's currently polling about 10% support among likely Dem voters, IIRC.


As far as the citizenship thing, no one talks about the dirty little secret that George Washington was not a natural born citizen. In fact, our first seven Presidents were not natural-born citizens of the United States.

I wouldn't say its coincidence that you hardly see him around these days.

[lue]

Chaoswizkid: I think we tend to be a liberal bunch. Sorry about that .

But yeah, I'm with you on the ACA not being the best thing ever. It's what nationalized health care looks like when the whole deal won't survive the legislative process.

So is there any reason why Hillary would run instead of Biden for next presidency? I mean you guys don't get preferential voting, so two rival democrats is suicide.

Because just saying President Joe Biden is nearly impossible without laughing. He's currently polling about 10% support among likely Dem voters, IIRC.


As far as the citizenship thing, no one talks about the dirty little secret that George Washington was not a natural born citizen. In fact, our first seven Presidents were not natural-born citizens of the United States.

Hah! 2.1.5 clearly states

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

So there.

[Descan]

I wonder if there was any gap of time between eligible statesmen born in the US and when the last eligible statesmen who were citizens at the time of adoption died/retired?

[Lagslayer]

Also, goodness is it liberal in here. Do we not have any Republicans or conservatives on Bay12 or have they all been scared off?

I tend to be more conservative, and I think there are a couple others. But, yeah, most people on this forum seem to be rabid liberals. At least by the USA's standards. I've heard that in a lot of places, the left and right are reversed.

Mostly I just poke at their arguments occasionally and try to steer them to a few key points. This usually gets them to discuss it seriously, so long as my original comment was subtle enough. Debating usually just turns into a shouting match.

[Max White]

Also, goodness is it liberal in here. Do we not have any Republicans or conservatives on Bay12 or have they all been scared off?

Please, have you even played Dwarf Fortress? The game is literally communist simulator 300... Right up until the evil tax free capitalist system kicks in and ruins it for everybody.

[Descan]

I think I'd be an okay local politician, or possibly diplomat. Great at skinnying my way into people, talking to them, listening, being Biden-y and happy.

:3

[Chaoswizkid]

Also, goodness is it liberal in here. Do we not have any Republicans or conservatives on Bay12 or have they all been scared off?

Please, have you even played Dwarf Fortress? The game is literally communist simulator 300... Right up until the evil tax free capitalist system kicks in and ruins it for everybody.

... This makes too much sense.

I think I'd be an okay local politician, or possibly diplomat. Great at skinnying my way into people

Descan, you whore... you'd fit right in!

[GlyphGryph]

Additionally, a lot of us are more liberal than we appear by virtue of the current American conservative movement driving off any decent conservatives that don't join them in their utter madness.

I could easily see myself getting called a conservative at a different time under different circumstances, but the modern-day conservative movement is outright crazy and most of it's members that tend to be active on the internet are obnoxious idiots.

This isn't to say the liberals don't have obnoxious idiots on the internet, they have plenty, but the conservative crowd seems pretty deadseat on pushing everyone with the capability for rational thought and a desire for honest discussion further and further to the left, while abandoning the values that actually made conservative politics appealing to people like myself.

That and most of the conservatives who DO show up usually manage to do something incredibly stupid, get themselves temp banned over it, and then ban dodge or insult the toad, at which point they depart for good.

[mainiac]

I'm not necessarily opposed to the ACA. I haven't educated myself on all of the ins and outs. There's just a lot of scary stuff being thrown around, and one side decrying it as something very harmful is equally as scary as the other side whispering, "Don't worry, everything will be fine." The end result is that I'm highly skeptic of the ACA. I plan on really looking through the whole thing soon, though. Still, I feel like I'd prefer almost any other version of "affordable" healthcare than "mandatory insurance". Our healthcare costs are just astronomically high because a necessary facet of our society has been allowed to run rampant with pricing. Mandatory insurance just places that burden on the taxpayers who already have the burden of having to deal with ridiculous medical expenses.

Also, there has been a trend in retail companies forcing their employees from full-time to part-time as a preemptive measure to get out of providing healthcare when the ACA goes into effect. That's pretty damaging, but maybe they'll be covered by federal subsidies. Problem is, since they employ a lot of people, that might mean more subsidies from the government, meaning that it could be an even heavier drain.


Other stuff about the ACA: I'm not satisfied with their answers about the unemployed. Looking up information about how the unemployed will be covered, they rely on the same system as those who are employed who will get federal subsidies, and that the federal subsidies will just subtract from what you owe, not actually cover it (granted from what I've read they haven't specified if the subtraction will or will not result in a zero, but there's nothing to suggest that it does). Then, you have a three-month grace period where you can try and get your shit together to pay the money before you're involuntarily kicked off of insurance. After that, you're fined for not having insurance, and if you're kicked off of insurance because you owe medical bills, then I don't think you can get other insurance until those bills are paid, meaning you're fined forever until those bills are paid. That sounds like it will really fuck up some people, so I'm hoping that the system doesn't work the way I just described (which I pulled from that Technical Explanation from Congress .pdf I linked earlier).

Also, goodness is it liberal in here. Do we not have any Republicans or conservatives on Bay12 or have they all been scared off?

"Mandatory Insurance" is just part of the system.  It's coupled with pricing regulations and competitive markets which are delivering far, far better prices then existed before.  The thing is that those regulations and markets can't work unless you do the mandate part.

If you can't afford the subsidized insurance on the exchanges for the poor then the medicaid expansion will cover you and you are exempt from the mandate.  This would include anyone who is too unemployed to afford the mandate.  So you aren't going to get "kicked in the balls" by losing your job then getting fined.  Rather if you lose your job then you'll suddenly get subsidies to let you afford health care until you get another or you'll be poor enough to qualified for medicare.  I mean, really man, do you think that no one would have noticed a massive flaw like that in the 20 years that this law was in the works?

I'd go on but there are loads of information out there about this.  Look into the "three legged stool of healthcare reform" or something.  It's not like they just picked this model randomly, it was the simplest way to get to a working system.  It's not the best system but it isn't a massively failing system like what we had before.


The thing about the part time hours is what we colloquially call a "lie".  Yes there is a grain of truth to it, but it's mostly something that professional conservative liars have blown massively out of proportion in their propaganda efforts about the law.  Consider that before the ACA there was no law requiring that full time employees receive health care.  Yet companies offered it anyway because it was a good way to structure your compensation.  Well now it's a hell of a lot better deal because the prices suddenly got a lot better.  Why would they stop doing it now that it suddenly became a better bargain?  Well maybe because they are politically motivated idiots who cut off their nose to spite their face and want to make some good anecdotes for the Wall Street Journal.  But it's hardly the ACA's fault that they aren't good at their job.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Also, goodness is it liberal in here. Do we not have any Republicans or conservatives on Bay12 or have they all been scared off?

*Raises hand

I could easily see myself getting called a conservative at a different time under different circumstances, but the modern-day conservative movement is outright crazy and most of it's members that tend to be active on the internet are obnoxious idiots.

This isn't to say the liberals don't have obnoxious idiots on the internet, they have plenty, but the conservative crowd seems pretty deadseat on pushing everyone with the capability for rational thought and a desire for honest discussion further and further to the left, while abandoning the values that actually made conservative politics appealing to people like myself.

Cable news emphasizes this. It's not just limited to Faux anymore. I'm tempted to call modern day conservatives RINOs.