Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2015, 09:27:43 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 665 666 667 668 669 [670] 671 672 673 674 675 ... 1082
16726  Forum Community / Survivor / Diplomacy Survivor: Hearts and Diamonds : ROUND 2 (Closed) on: March 03, 2010, 11:53:26 pm
This thread will be used for the nine preliminary rounds involving the Hearts and Diamonds Groups.

Country: Title Name (Party) or [Dynasty/House] or [General]

Heart Group
Denmark: King Christian IX [House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg]
Dominican Republic: President Juan Isidro Jimenes (Jimenista)
Ecuador: President Eloy Alfaro (Liberal)
3♥  El Salvador: President Tomás Regalado [General]

France: Prime Minister Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau (Democratic Republican Alliance)
2♥  Germany: Kaiser Wilhelm II [House of Hohenzollern]
Greece: Prime Minister Georgios Theotokis (New)
Guatemala: President Manuel Estrada (Liberal)
Haiti: President Tirésias Simon Sam

Honduras: President Terencio Sierra (Liberal)
Italy: Prime Minister Giuseppe Saracco (Historical Left)
Japan: Prime Minister Itō Hirobumi (Seiyūkai)
Korea: Emperor Gojong [Joseon Dynasty]

Diamond Group
Liberia: President Garreston W. Gibson (True Whig)
Luxembourg: Grand Duke Adolphe [House of Nassau]
Mexico: President Porfirio Diaz (Liberal)
Montenegro: Prince Nicholas I [House of Petrović-Njegoš]

Morocco: Sultan Abdelaziz [Alaouite Dynasty]
Netherlands: Prime Minister Nicolaas Pierson (Liberal Union)
Nicaragua: President José Santos Zelaya (Liberal)
Norway: Prime Minister Johannes Steen (Liberal)
3♦ Orange Free State: President Martinus Theunis Steyn (pan-Dutch)

2♦ Ottoman Empire: Sultan Abdul Hamid II [House of Osman]
Paraguay: President Emilio Aceval (Colorado)
Persia: Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar [Qajar Dynasty]
Peru: President Eduardo López de Romaña (Civil)
16727  General Discussion / Constitution and Law / Re: Supreme Court Leans Pro-Gun Rights in McDonald vs. Chicago on: March 03, 2010, 08:31:27 pm
After DC v. Heller, the result of McDonald v. Chicago was never really in doubt, just whether the court would take the opportunity to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases or just rely on the incorporation doctrine to strike down gun bans.  Based on the oral arguments, it does not look like the court will not be overturning the Slaughter-House Cases.
16728  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: 50 Dollar Bill on: March 03, 2010, 03:21:55 pm
Try using a $50 bill at a convenience store ..........they have a fit........I still do it sometimes, but they have a total fit.......all kinds of signs saying they won't take them......lol.

How many people buy more than $20 worth of stuff at one time from inside a convenience store?  Convenience stores don't want to be in the business of making change.  It costs them money.
16729  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: 50 Dollar Bill on: March 03, 2010, 03:02:07 pm
I wouldn't hold my breath for larger bills any time soon. Large transactions are seldom paid for in cash, the organized crime concerns that took large bills out of circulation circa 1969 still exist, and counterfeiting concerns would be a horrendous nightmare.

Besides, by the time there would be an inflationary need for a higher-than-$100 bill, we'll be on an entirely electronic monetary system anyway.

With a €500 bill in circulation, there are no legitimate arguments against introducing a $200 or $500 bill other than lack of demand.  I can't see us ever going to a totally electronic system.  Bankless persons in this country and international users of the dollar need something tangible to transact with.  We certainly won't be going all-electronic anytime this century unless we want to abandon the preeminent place that the U.S. dollar has as a world currency.

That said, there's no strong need for a $500 bill at present.  A $200 bill would be useful, but the inertia of using the $100 would keep it from circulating as widely as it might if the currency were being started fro scratch.
16730  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: 50 Dollar Bill on: March 03, 2010, 02:04:01 pm
What's wrong with keeping U. S. Grant (a fine man and a patriot, if maybe a sh**tty president)?

Of current U.S. currency, the 50 dollar bill is the only one which exhibits no connection between the subject on the front and the back.  Assuming we keep the U.S. Capitol on the back, then logically someone heavily associated with the place should be on the front, of which Henry Clay would be the best choice in my opinion.
16731  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: 50 Dollar Bill on: March 03, 2010, 01:35:10 pm
Why do you need people on the bills anyway?

Buildings looks just fine as well.

(Note: I don't support the Euro... I just think they look very beautiful)

Ugh.  Imaginary buildings.

Here's what I would put on U.S. currency and coins if I could dictate such things.

Currency
$500: James Madison / Christy's Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States
$200: John Marshall / Supreme Court courtroom
$100: Benjamin Franklin / Trumbull's Declaration of Independence (formerly on the back of the $2 bill)
$50: Henry Clay / U.S. Capitol
$20: John Adams / White House
$10: Alexander Hamilton / Trumbull's Washington Resigning his Commission
$5: Abraham Lincoln / Martin Luther King's I Have a Dream speech at the Lincoln memorial

Coin ($2 to $¼ to have a bald eagle on the reverse)
$2: [bimetalic ring] Old Faithful
$1: Statue of Liberty (current reverse of the $1 presidential dollar series)
$½: [new 4.05g coin of the same composition as the $1] Golden Gate Bridge
$¼: George Washington
dime: Ring of thirteen stars / Liberty Bell
nickel: [same size, but nickel-plated steel] Indian Head / Buffalo
16732  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Caltech creates solar panel with 86% efficiency on: March 03, 2010, 02:16:16 am
I was aware of the recent fuel cell development.  But there are fuel cells and then there are fuel cells.  Solid oxide fuel cells such as mentioned in the article will never be practical for anything other than the large fixed installations mentioned due to their operating characteristics, especially their lengthy start up time and high operating temperatures.  Basically these cells substitute for gas turbines used to generate electricity, but this class of fuel cell will never substitute for the internal combustion engine.
16733  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: 50 Dollar Bill on: March 03, 2010, 01:51:19 am
Since the back of the $50 has the U.S. Capitol, someone from Congress should be on the front, and I can think of no one better than Henry Clay.

When we get a $200 bill, I'd like to see Chief Justice Marshall on the front and the Supreme Court courtroom on the back.

If we get a $500 bill back, I'd like to see the front have James Madison (who last appeared on the $5000) and the back be Christy's Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States which heretofore has not appeared on U.S. currency.  Definitely no reason to put McKinley on the front again.
16734  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should "hard drugs" (cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, etc.) be legalized? on: March 03, 2010, 12:52:08 am
I wouldn't jump straight to banning alcohol, but it is technically a drug, alters brain function, and a toxin. The laws however on it are too light. Drunk driving laws are downright laughable. Alcohol abuse is all too common, things need to be done about this. Maybe if these things can be perfected then these drugs can be introduced as well. But right now Americans can't even make correct dietary choices, what makes you think they'll make good drug choices?

And who gave you the authority to decree that they are making a "bad choice" and therefore must be punished?
16735  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Caltech creates solar panel with 86% efficiency on: March 02, 2010, 07:20:58 pm
Until they actually do, I'll be skeptical that they can make them for a reasonable cost on a mass production basis.

Fuel cells have had the same problem as well for decades.
16736  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: WinDis Polls - 1: Abortion on: March 02, 2010, 06:56:05 pm
In fact a human being has the right to life from the moment of conception, regardless of whether he or she can feel pain.

I take it then that you also oppose in vitro fertilization, at least as currently done, since it involves discarding quite a few embryos along the way, as well as discarding the leftovers once a couple is satisfied that they have all the children they want (or are going to get).
16737  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should "hard drugs" (cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, etc.) be legalized? on: March 02, 2010, 12:16:43 pm
Cocaine and the opiates should be.  They are too easily produced so all criminalization with our current level of penalties does is put money into the hands of organized crime and terrorists.

Maybe if there were a death penalty for users, the demand could be curbed, but I do not expect to see nor would I support laws that were that draconian.

The amphetamines are too useful for us to be able to successfully halt their diversion into recreational use or conversion into the methamphetamine.
16738  Forum Community / Survivor / Diplomacy Survivor: Spades and Clubs: ROUND 1 on: March 01, 2010, 10:39:24 pm
Vote for one leader from each of the Spade and Club Groups to be the deuce of their suits.  You may choose to vote in only one group if you wish.  As a special bonus, since there is a President Castro in each group, a vote that says just Castro will be treated as a vote for both of them. Cheesy

Voting will be open from 05:00 (UTC) 2 March to 05:00 (UTC) 3 March [All day March 2 in the Eastern Time Zone].

VOTES CAST BEFORE OR AFTER THE POLLS ARE CLOSED WILL NOT BE COUNTED!
16739  Forum Community / Survivor / Diplomacy Survivor: Spades and Clubs: ROUND 2 (Closed) on: March 01, 2010, 10:23:49 pm
This thread will be used for the nine preliminary rounds involving the Spades and Clubs Groups.

Country: Title Name (Party) or [Dynasty/House] or [General]

Spade Group
Abyssinia: Emperor Menelik II [Solomonic Dynasty]
Argentina: President Julio Argentino Roca (National Autonomist)
2♠ Austria-Hungary: Emperor and King Franz Joseph [House of Habsburg-Lorraine]
Australia: Prime Minister Edmund Barton (Protectionist)

Belgium: Prime Minister Paul de Smet de Naeyer (Catholic)
Bolivia: President José Manuel Pando (Liberal)
Brazil: President Campos Sales (Republican: São Paulo)
Bulgaria: Prime Minister Todor Ivanchov (Liberal)
Canada: Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier (Liberal)

3♠ China: Empress Dowager Cixi [Qing Dynasty]
Chile: President Federico Errázuriz Echaurren (Liberal)
Colombia: President José Manuel Marroquín (Conservative)
Costa Rica: President Rafael Yglesias Castro (Civil)

Club Group
Portugal: Prime Minister Ernesto Hintze Ribeiro (Regenerator)
Romania: Prime Minister Petre P. Carp (Conservative)
3♣ Russia: Emperor Nicholas II [House of Romanov]
Serbia: King Alexander I [House of Obrenović]

Siam: King Rama V [Chakri Dynasty]
2♣ South African Republic: President Paul Kruger
Spain: Prime Minister Marcelo de Azcarraga y Palmero (Conservative)
Sweden-Norway: King Oscar II [House of Bernadotte]
Switzerland: President Ernst Brenner (Free Democratic)

United Kingdom: Prime Minister Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative)
United States: President William McKinley (Republican)
Uruguay: President Juan Lindolfo Cuestas (Colorado)
Venezuela: President Cipriano Castro [General]
16740  Forum Community / Survivor / Re: Diplomacy Survivor (World Leaders as of January 1, 1901) - GROUPS on: March 01, 2010, 10:22:14 pm
Since I have 52 leaders, I've decided that for the early rounds, I'll use four groups of 13, each named after a card suit.  Voting will be alternating for the first nine rounds between the Black Suits and the Red Suits.

Country: Title Name (Party) or [Dynasty/House] or [General]

Spade Group
Abyssinia: Emperor Menelik II [Solomonic Dynasty]
Argentina: President Julio Argentino Roca (National Autonomist)
Austria-Hungary: Emperor and King Franz Joseph [House of Habsburg-Lorraine]
Australia: Prime Minister Edmund Barton (Protectionist)

Belgium: Prime Minister Paul de Smet de Naeyer (Catholic)
Bolivia: President José Manuel Pando (Liberal)
Brazil: President Campos Sales (Republican: São Paulo)
Bulgaria: Prime Minister Todor Ivanchov (Liberal)
Canada: Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier (Liberal)

China: Empress Dowager Cixi [Qing Dynasty]
Chile: President Federico Errázuriz Echaurren (Liberal)
Colombia: President José Manuel Marroquín (Conservative)
Costa Rica: President Rafael Yglesias Castro (Civil)

Heart GroupDenmark: King Christian IX [House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg]
Dominican Republic: President Juan Isidro Jimenes (Jimenista)
Ecuador: President Eloy Alfaro (Liberal)
El Salvador: President Tomás Regalado [General]

France: Prime Minister Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau (Democratic Republican Alliance)
Germany: Kaiser Wilhelm II [House of Hohenzollern]
Greece: Prime Minister Georgios Theotokis (New)
Guatemala: President Manuel Estrada (Liberal)
Haiti: President Tirésias Simon Sam

Honduras: President Terencio Sierra (Liberal)
Italy: Prime Minister Giuseppe Saracco (Historical Left)
Japan: Prime Minister Itō Hirobumi (Seiyūkai)
Korea: Emperor Gojong [Joseon Dynasty]

Diamond Group
Liberia: President Garreston W. Gibson (True Whig)
Luxembourg: Grand Duke Adolphe [House of Nassau]
Mexico: President Porfirio Diaz (Liberal)
Montenegro: Prince Nicholas I [House of Petrović-Njegoš]

Morocco: Sultan Abdelaziz [Alaouite Dynasty]
Netherlands: Prime Minister Nicolaas Pierson (Liberal Union)
Nicaragua: President José Santos Zelaya (Liberal)
Norway: Prime Minister Johannes Steen (Liberal)
Orange Free State: President Martinus Theunis Steyn (pan-Dutch)

Ottoman Empire: Sultan Abdul Hamid II [House of Osman]
Paraguay: President Emilio Aceval (Colorado)
Persia: Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar [Qajar Dynasty]
Peru: President Eduardo López de Romaña (Civil)

Club Group
Portugal: Prime Minister Ernesto Hintze Ribeiro (Regenerator)
Romania: Prime Minister Petre P. Carp (Conservative)
Russia: Emperor Nicholas II [House of Romanov]
Serbia: King Alexander I [House of Obrenović]

Siam: King Rama V [Chakri Dynasty]
South African Republic: President Paul Kruger
Spain: Prime Minister Marcelo de Azcarraga y Palmero (Conservative)
Sweden-Norway: King Oscar II [House of Bernadotte]
Switzerland: President Ernst Brenner (Free Democratic)

United Kingdom: Prime Minister Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (Conservative)
United States: President William McKinley (Republican)
Uruguay: President Juan Lindolfo Cuestas (Colorado)
Venezuela: President Cipriano Castro [General]
16741  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: WinDis Polls - 1: Abortion on: March 01, 2010, 06:48:16 pm
While I agree with the premise that if a fetus is not human being, then there should be no restrictions on whether a fetus may be terminated, there is no objective way of determining that a fetus is not a human being.  Given a particular set of subjective standards for being human, it is possible to objectively determine if that standard is met.

Since the standard for being a human being is subjective, it follows that setting that standard is a legislative function of government (unless one is an anarchist who believes that there should not be any such thing as government).

That is my objection to Roe v. Wade and its successor decisions.  They treat a legislative (i.e., subjective)  matter as if it were judicial (i.e., objective).

 Good luck getting people to realize that their position on abortion (or any other issue, really) is not inherently & objectively the just & correct position to hold.

I don't expect my argument to sway the zealots on either side.  Still it is the one I will hold to.
16742  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: WinDis Polls - 1: Abortion on: February 28, 2010, 07:18:02 pm
I am a libertarian. I am thus de facto pro-choice, and passionately so.

Contradiction.

The contradiction is yours. You deny the property rights of the mother.

Sorry, one human being can never own another. Hence why I oppose slavery as well as abortion.

A fetus cannot own anything, and hence is not a human being.

By your own subjective standards.  While I agree with the premise that if a fetus is not human being, then there should be no restrictions on whether a fetus may be terminated, there is no objective way of determining that a fetus is not human being.  Given a particular set of subjective standards for being human, it is possible to objectively determine if that standard is met.

Since the standard for being a human being is subjective, it follows that setting that standard is a legislative function of government (unless one is an anarchist who believes that there should not be any such thing as government).

That is my objection to Roe v. Wade and its successor decisions.  They treat a legislative (i.e., subjective)  matter as if it were judicial (i.e., objective).
16743  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Could Jenny Sanford make a 2012 Presidential Run? on: February 28, 2010, 04:37:34 pm
She's never held elected office....

It's too late for her to get in the governor's race, and I don't know when a senate seat will become available. She'll be old news by the time she can get any experience.

Politically it is too late, but the filing period doesn't begin until the middle of March.  That said, Treasurer or Comptroller General would be a better choice if she were of a mind to try, not that I think she would be.
16744  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1896: McKinley vs. Grover Cleveland on: February 28, 2010, 02:28:06 pm
I think McKinley would win much more Western states since Cleveland and Bryan will split the vote that Bryan got there in RL and thus McKinley would win in many of them due to the divided Democratic vote. McKinley even won OR, ND, and almost SD when the Democrats were united in 1896 in RL. I agree that McKinley would win, though. Also, I think McKinley would easily win KY since he won it against Bryan in RL and possibly several other Southern states.

The West was fairly solid Free Silver, which was why the Populists did so well there in 1892 despite being a third party with no hopes of actually winning.  With both McKinley and Cleveland running, the gold vote would be split, allowing the Populists to win some Western states that McKinley won in real life.

However, in the South, the Populist's appeal was less about Free Silver and more about providing an alternative to the Bourbon Democrats that the Republicans hadn't.  If the Populists run a candidate of their own, many of McKinley's real life Southern votes would have gone to Bryan.

Finally, how do you make a three way map of 1896 when there are only 2 colors available for that year?

As the map below shows, there are five party colors available each year, but the evcalc page only provides easy access to however many actually had a chance that year.  If you take a look the map url, you'll see that for each state there is a component, of the form:
<postalcode>=<colorcode>;<electoralvotes>;<decile>

<postalcode> is the postal code of the state
<colorcode> 1=red, 2= blue, 3=green, 4=yellow, 5=orange (also 0=gray, but then the decile doesn't matter)
<electoralvotes>  However many electoral votes you want, or even text as I do with Texas below
<decile> Any number from 2 to 9 to indicate the voting strength was from 20 to 90%



However, I did it more simply than that.  I used the 1892 evcalc as it had all three colors I wanted, then changed year=1892 to year=1896 and inserted &UT=3;3;7 in the appropriate place for Utah, altho the order doesn't matter.
16745  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Are you/have you going to vote/voted in your state's primary? on: February 28, 2010, 01:48:36 pm
Since filing won't be until the second half of March, I'll be waiting until April to look at the downticket races for the June primary. I will vote in the Republican primary unless Lt. Gov. Bauer's campaign for governor collapses.  If that does happen, then I'll need to decide which primary I want to vote it.  Still will likely be the Republican primary since that will be the de facto election for the county offices.

Senator: DeMint is currently unopposed in the primary
House: Wilson is currently unopposed in the primary

Governor:
   1st round: whichever of Barrett or McMaster is doing worse in the polls so as to minimize the chance Bauer makes it to the runoffs
   Runoff: If Bauer does make it, whoever his opponent is, otherwise McMaster.
16746  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Opinion of the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Act, 1997 on: February 28, 2010, 01:18:11 pm
Do we really want anything close to what we had for regulations (or lack thereof) in the 1930s? Remember gangsters? Remember how tons of innocents died thanks to organized crime. I don't give a damn if its "too restrictive" if the country is safer as a whole and nobody suffers because of it.

You're confusing the cause with the method used.  The root cause of the mob violence in this country in the 1930s, and in Mexico today is prohibition of intoxicants peoplw want to use, not guns.  If the government would stop worrying so much about what people voluntarily want to consume, we'd all be a lot better off.  Indeed, that's the problem with the War on Drugs.  To enforce one set of authoritarian laws, they need a whole lot more other laws to do so.  As a whole society would be better off with none of them than all of them.
16747  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Could Jenny Sanford make a 2012 Presidential Run? on: February 28, 2010, 01:29:31 am
Primary Graham!!!  She'd beat him like a drum.  It'd be equivalent to Murkowski v. Palin in 2006.

By 2014 when Graham next runs, any political cachet Jenny might have will have faded unless she does something bold such as entering the Comptroller General race against Eckstrom this year.  She'd have a realistic shot of winning the primary and whoever has an R beside their name will win that race in November.
16748  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1896: McKinley vs. Grover Cleveland on: February 28, 2010, 01:17:36 am
The whole scenario is illogical.  Had Cleveland or any other Gold Democrat gotten the Democratic nomination in 1896, then the Populists would certainly have run a candidate of their own on a platform of Free Silver.

All right. Draw a three-way map then.



McKinley (R):282
Cleveland (D): 91
Bryan (P): 74
16749  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1896: McKinley vs. Grover Cleveland on: February 28, 2010, 12:56:53 am
The whole scenario is illogical.  Had Cleveland or any other Gold Democrat gotten the Democratic nomination in 1896, then the Populists would certainly have run a candidate of their own on a platform of Free Silver.
16750  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: A question about the 2003 reapportionment on: February 27, 2010, 07:16:18 pm
Washington's veto seems quite legitimate, since the Constitution did indeed set a minimum population per representative
The Constitutional limit is "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" not "The Number of Representatives for each State shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand".
Washington's veto message says:

Quote from: George Washington, April 5, 1792
Second. The Constitution has also provided that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand; which restriction is, by the context, and by fair and obvious construction, to be applied to the separate and respective numbers of the States: and the bill has allotted to eight of the States more than one for every thirty thousand.


Since 8 States were affected, they must have originally tried to apportion the maximum 120 possible Representatives in the bill Washington vetoed, but doing so would run afoul of Washington's stated objection no matter what method was used.  With Washington's stated objection the maximum number of Representatives could be 112 for the 1790 census.

So any objection to using Hamilton's method on Constitutional grounds is a sham as by appropriately reducing the size of the House, any method could meet the stated reason, and without a reduction, none could.

The maximum size for the House apportioned using the 1790 Census and Hamilton's method while keeping the Ratio in each State above 30K per Representative would have been 100, which would have given Virginia only 17 of 100 Representatives under Hamilton (or under Webster or Huntington-Hill, but the House would need to be even smaller under those two methods, at most 99 for Webster and 92 for Huntington-Hill).

Yet rather than increase the quota to be used for Hamilton's method, they switched to a different method that produced a bias for large States such as Virginia.  It could have been worse.  Using a quota that would have produced a House of 112 Jefferson's method would have given Virginia 21 of 112 seats for an even larger bias.

Note: All of the stated maximums above come from selecting a quota that produces as large a House as possible using the 1790 Census data, but does not necessarily work a priori, assuming the Representation limit applies per State without knowing what the numbers were.  Using a quota of 30,000 in Jefferson's method works with any set of data but results in there being a House of 105 members using the 1790 data. Webster's quota needs to be 40,000 (or more) which results in a House of 91 members. Huntington-Hill needs a priority value of at least 42,427 (30,000 * sqrt(2)) which results in a House of 86 members. The quota needed for Hamilton to work under all data sets is 60,000 which results in a House of 60 members.
Pages: 1 ... 665 666 667 668 669 [670] 671 672 673 674 675 ... 1082


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines