SAM News Corp. Comment and Debate thread

[Sam Spade]

Sam, I found myself agreeing with almost everything in your most recent editorial, which summed up perfectly, in my opinion, all that's been going on in Atlasia as of late.  I hadn't even considered some of the implications you discuss, and they've both given me new perspective on all this as well as convinced me that my feelings about it have been reasonable.  Thank you for your continued insights as GM.

You're welcome, Q.  Always glad to be of help.

[Bono]

My "infamous" budged cut still would have left a huge deficit.

[Joe Republic]

First to join in the fun was Ben Meyers, who made an acknowledged carpetbagging manuever in order to run for the seat, moving from Florida to New York in order to make himself legal and ineligible.

I'm not sure what was meant by this.  Could you clarify?

[Sam Spade]

First to join in the fun was Ben Meyers, who made an acknowledged carpetbagging manuever in order to run for the seat, moving from Florida to New York in order to make himself legal and ineligible.

I'm not sure what was meant by this.  Could you clarify?

Typo.

[Joe Republic]

Ah ok, I was confused by it.

[The Duke]

I'm back to annoy you about budget stuff.  Sorry.

If isntead of conslidating all government agency's headqauretrs to San Francsico, we did it in Sacramento where there is a lot of infrastructure for the bureacracy already in place (buildings, mainly), are there any addiutional savings?  Moving to San Fran was a savings of 1%, and our previous discussionsa are on the earlier pages of this thread.

Thanks.

[Sam Spade]

I'm back to annoy you about budget stuff.  Sorry.

If isntead of conslidating all government agency's headqauretrs to San Francsico, we did it in Sacramento where there is a lot of infrastructure for the bureacracy already in place (buildings, mainly), are there any addiutional savings?  Moving to San Fran was a savings of 1%, and our previous discussionsa are on the earlier pages of this thread.

Thanks.

California is, I believe, roughly 1/4 of the Regional budget.  Although the California state buildings, et al, will already be in Sacramento, there will have to be additional building and land buying, etc., just not as much as in San Francisco.  Also, the cost will be slightly cheaper (eminent domain, etc.).

I'm going to say 1.25%, or roughly $2.5 billion dollar savings, if the move were made to Sacramento.

[The Duke]

I'm back to annoy you about budget stuff.  Sorry.

If isntead of conslidating all government agency's headqauretrs to San Francsico, we did it in Sacramento where there is a lot of infrastructure for the bureacracy already in place (buildings, mainly), are there any addiutional savings?  Moving to San Fran was a savings of 1%, and our previous discussionsa are on the earlier pages of this thread.

Thanks.

California is, I believe, roughly 1/4 of the Regional budget.  Although the California state buildings, et al, will already be in Sacramento, there will have to be additional building and land buying, etc., just not as much as in San Francisco.  Also, the cost will be slightly cheaper (eminent domain, etc.).

I'm going to say 1.25%, or roughly $2.5 billion dollar savings, if the move were made to Sacramento.

$3.1 billion or so would be 1.25%.  $2.5 billion is 1%.  Budget is $256 billion.

[Sam Spade]

I'm back to annoy you about budget stuff.  Sorry.

If isntead of conslidating all government agency's headqauretrs to San Francsico, we did it in Sacramento where there is a lot of infrastructure for the bureacracy already in place (buildings, mainly), are there any addiutional savings?  Moving to San Fran was a savings of 1%, and our previous discussionsa are on the earlier pages of this thread.

Thanks.

California is, I believe, roughly 1/4 of the Regional budget.  Although the California state buildings, et al, will already be in Sacramento, there will have to be additional building and land buying, etc., just not as much as in San Francisco.  Also, the cost will be slightly cheaper (eminent domain, etc.).

I'm going to say 1.25%, or roughly $2.5 billion dollar savings, if the move were made to Sacramento.

$3.1 billion or so would be 1.25%.  $2.5 billion is 1%.  Budget is $256 billion.

Ok, then $3.1 billion it is.  I thought it was more around $200 billion, but I must have miscounted.

[WMS]

Well, it's good to see my trip to Germany went so well.

[Peter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have to agree with many of the sentiments that you express in these two paragraphs:

There remain at least 3 unanswered questions from the last election:

1. Vice President-less ballots
2. The problem surrounding Tweed's activity requirement disqualification(or not)
3. Ben Meyers' vote in the Senate elections.,

True: there is need to address the problems of tactical voting within the present system and that can only be done by statute, but the problems surrounding these three issues could easily be decided in the Courts.

Unfortunately the Court can only react to what is brought to it, it cannot be proactive unlike the Senate and the Executive, and this was taken to ridiculous extremes in the last election. The Senate (amazingly on the advice of one of the forum's most prominent strict constructionists) actively assumed the power to declare the result of a controversial Presidential election as its own, one that by all indication of the text of the Constituition belongs to the Supreme Court.

I have to ask what sort of precedent this has set - is every controversial election result now going to be decided by a show of hands in the Senate?

[True Democrat]

I would just like to make a response to Prime Minister's Sharon's accusations.  I am in no way in favor of risking Israel's security for a Palestinian state.  However, it is true that I do favor a separate Palestine that woudl include the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  This should be a long process, but Israel should start to pull out of both.  When it comes to the wall, I am still in favor of getting rid of it, but I have to come realize that this cannot get rid of it right now.  The ICJ declared the wall illegal, and though I do not believe Israel should get rid of the wall just because this ruling was made, the court does have a point.  Israel is restricting Palestinian travel.  When a Palestinian state becomes a reality, and peace is secured, I hope the wall can be torn down.

[Q]

The Senate (amazingly on the advice of one of the forum's most prominent strict constructionists) actively assumed the power to declare the result of a controversial Presidential election as its own, one that by all indication of the text of the Constituition belongs to the Supreme Court.

I have to ask what sort of precedent this has set - is every controversial election result now going to be decided by a show of hands in the Senate?

When did this happen?

[Jake]

Emsworth's resolution that the Senate accept the results and declare Joe as the winner.

[jokerman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I would have to agree with many of the sentiments that you express in these two paragraphs:

There remain at least 3 unanswered questions from the last election:

1. Vice President-less ballots
2. The problem surrounding Tweed's activity requirement disqualification(or not)
3. Ben Meyers' vote in the Senate elections.,

True: there is need to address the problems of tactical voting within the present system and that can only be done by statute, but the problems surrounding these three issues could easily be decided in the Courts.

Unfortunately the Court can only react to what is brought to it, it cannot be proactive unlike the Senate and the Executive, and this was taken to ridiculous extremes in the last election. The Senate (amazingly on the advice of one of the forum's most prominent strict constructionists) actively assumed the power to declare the result of a controversial Presidential election as its own, one that by all indication of the text of the Constituition belongs to the Supreme Court.

I have to ask what sort of precedent this has set - is every controversial election result now going to be decided by a show of hands in the Senate?

I share all of your concerns.  I demand that an accurate count of the election results is produced.  I have already gone over Ilikeverin's count and proven it to contain several errors, yet the Senate has taken the liberty of deciding the Presidency by itself.

[Q]

The Senate never decided this election.

There was merely a resolution to lend the Senate's unofficial support to the results as declared by the SoFA, in the name of unity.

I certainly would never have voted to install a president in such a manner.  That is simply not what happened.  Read the resolution again.

It is troubling that anyone would so grossly misunderstand what occurred.

[Jake]

It may not have done anything officially, but it pretty much told anyone who wanted to challenge results that they wouldn't get anywhere because public opinion was against them.

[Q]

It may not have done anything officially, but it pretty much told anyone who wanted to challenge results that they wouldn't get anywhere because public opinion was against them.

I sincerely hope that such was not the case.  I do not believe that it would have influenced the Supreme Court in deciding such a case.  "Public opinion" should not be a criterion in our judicial system.

I cannot say that I truly agreed with all aspects of the SoFA's decision, but I signed in the name of national unity.  Emsworth and I felt it would be less important to take the oaths of office ourselves than to try to maintain this experiment in democracy we all belong to.

[KEmperor]

It may not have done anything officially, but it pretty much told anyone who wanted to challenge results that they wouldn't get anywhere because public opinion was against them.

I sincerely hope that such was not the case.  I do not believe that it would have influenced the Supreme Court in deciding such a case.  "Public opinion" should not be a criterion in our judicial system.

I cannot say that I truly agreed with all aspects of the SoFA's decision, but I signed in the name of national unity.  Emsworth and I felt it would be less important to take the oaths of office ourselves than to try to maintain this experiment in democracy we all belong to.

Yes, but notice that we have not dealt with any cases regarding this election.  I strongly suspect this is because the Senate passed a resolution saying who THEY think the winner is, and it discouraged any challenges.  We might have disagreed, but we can't do anything unless someone brings the case before us.

Who cares what the Senate thinks of the election, it's not their job to decide desputes.  You shouldn't have done that.

[Jake]

You admit in your second paragraph that public opinion did influence your actions.

[Peter]

The Senate never decided this election.

There was merely a resolution to lend the Senate's unofficial support to the results as declared by the SoFA, in the name of unity.

I certainly would never have voted to install a president in such a manner.  That is simply not what happened.  Read the resolution again.

It is troubling that anyone would so grossly misunderstand what occurred.

Certainly, in the interests of unity the Resolution was a good thing, however, all that is good is not necessarily legal, and that is where the Resolution fell down.

The resolution states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that we had two potential certifications floating around, each certifying different winners, it seems that the Senate has decided for us that one certification was definitely valid, and the other was not.

Of course, the Senate lending support to one candidate over the other potential winner also places the Court into an impossible position had it actually had to review the election result - If we had found Emsworth to be the actual winner under the Law, we would have visited upon ourselves the public wrath for going against a Senate resolution embodying the "will of the people".

Don't for a second pretend that you didn't effectively decide the election, because thats exactly what you did. You decided which certification counted and robbed the Court of any legitimacy it had to make the decision had it fallen to it.

[KEmperor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given that we had two potential certifications floating around, each certifying different winners, it seems that the Senate has decided for us that one certification was definitely valid, and the other was not.

Of course, the Senate lending support to one candidate over the other potential winner also places the Court into an impossible position had it actually had to review the election result - If we had found Emsworth to be the actual winner under the Law, we would have visited upon ourselves the public wrath for going against a Senate resolution embodying the "will of the people".

Don't for a second pretend that you didn't effectively decide the election, because thats exactly what you did. You decided which certification counted and robbed the Court of any legitimacy it had to make the decision had it fallen to it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Emsworth]

The resolution merely acknowledged the fact that Joe Republic had been certified as the winner of the election. The Secretary of Forum Affairs had already declared him President-Elect; the Senate usurped no power, abused no authority.

There was no other certification. The first declaration of the result, as was obviousl and apparent, was not a certification at all.

Were the resolution urged by Joe Republic or Defarge, then I can see the cause for complaint. But as it so happens, it was not.

[Peter]

There was no other certification. The first declaration of the result, as was obviousl and apparent, was not a certification at all.

Thats not what you were saying at the time.

[jokerman]

The SoFA's election count was not legitiment.