Forum
A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.
Page 124 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Happy Rome Day
since today (April 21) is Rome's 2770th birthday, I thought it would be nice to fill this thread with stories of the glory of Rome:
5 replies
Open
The Muting Thread
This is the thread that everyone mutes.
9 replies
Open
Captainmeme (1400 D Mod (B))
01 Apr 17 UTC
(+4)
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ON VDIPLOMACY'S FUTURE
Please see within for details on the vDiplomacy Referendum.
66 replies
Open
GOD (1850 D Mod (B))
28 Jan 16 UTC
(+1)
Can't stop the Trump
Does anyone here has a clue as to why Donald Trump is boycotting the latest republican debate? Seems to have only downsides and risks without a real gain to me. Enlighten me please.
Page 9 of 10
FirstPreviousNextLast
 
mouse (1825 D)
15 Feb 17 UTC
Voting would not have helped, except to give minor parties more funding for next time...
Murcanic (1453 D)
15 Feb 17 UTC
Technically with that amount of Americans that didn't vote at all if they had been abit more vocal and picked a third party candidate to vote for, that person would have had a pretty good chance of winning, and it could get the people who dislike the current system and want to send a message of we want change out to the country rather then people just accepting a 2 party system and letting the system stagnate...
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
15 Feb 17 UTC
(+1)
Third parties are nearly impossible to stand up in the American constitutional system, and would percipitate a major contitutional crisis if a successful one ever did. Imagine the second or third place party being voted into power by congress, it would happen often in the first decades of the third party insurgeance
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
15 Feb 17 UTC
(+1)
*and to be more specific REPUBLICAN candidates would benefit exclusively from a third party, due to the way the vote would be conducted in congress democrats would have almost no chance since the vote would be by state.
mapleleaf (1155 D X)
16 Feb 17 UTC
@gopher27 - You ought to assume tl;dr with regards to any of your vomitus.

If you've a wager then spell it out SUCCINCTLY, blabberfingers. If you can. Nobody with a life is going to waste any of it wading through your nonsense.
RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
There is no "two party system" The constitution does not prescript anything of the sort. There are plenty of occurrences throughout history where multiple parties have been competitive in the presidential and legislative races. The suggestion that multiple parties would cause a constitutional crisis is rather laughable since the Constitution has already anticipated such an event and survived it multiple times. The present climate is one dominated by two parties. Some of that is legacy party loyalty. Some of it is addiction to power. Mostly it's because as bad as the Democrat and Republican Parties are, the alternatives are largely single issue focus groups, that do not appeal to a wider audience.
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
At least mapleleaf isn't in here calling people racist slurs as he is known to do
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
(+1)
Ruff, if there is a third party, unless it is popular enough to get a majority of electoral votes, the election is thrown to congress which votes as states, unless the party has won enough reps and senators the election will go to the party with the most states, which unless there is a major party realignment, will be republicans (Wyoming counts the same as California) so no matter if the repub is 1st 2nd or 3rd, s/he will be elected president.

How do you think that will make the country feel

The constitution may be ready for such a situation (which would likely last several elections before the third party, if successful becomes one of two parties) but I guarantee you the American people are not.
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
And it would CLEARLY cause a constitutional crisis
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
*only the house picks it now, excuse the mistake
RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
I have read the Constitution. Maybe you have as well, but you're obviously unclear understand how it works. I agree that the Republican Party would have control of such a scenario. I disagree that this would be a constitutional crisis. This is exactly how it was intended to work, just as the electoral college is. When the document was drafted there were no provisions for a two party system, and none have been amended into it since. Read the writings and debates of the authors and contributors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You'll see what drove their decisions,and what they intended.

Additionally you're arguing the situation in a vacuum scenario where a third or fourth party prevents the electoral college from selecting a president, while ignoring the fact that to get to that point would require a nationwide movement of said parties. In such a case it's entire likely that the make up of the state legislatures would reflect a similar diversity of party make up. And when you consider that it's not so likely that the prescribed constitutional solution of a House vote (by state) would go strictly to the Republicans. In any case, it would not create a crisis. It would simply be different than we've all been used to, which is kind of the point of an alternative party, isn't it?

The only crisis here is that the Democrat Party lost, and is throwing a temper tantrum about the pendulum swing of political power. That doesn't excuse Republicans of everything or anything. Republicans have plenty of faults, but at least they don't riot. At least they do not change the rules and then cry about it when they lose the majority and the rule change bites them in the ass. They don't have slumber parties on the floor of the legislature, sitting there with binkies in their mouths. The reality is the Democrat Party lost because they lost touch with the people. They completely overlooked the anti-establishment rage, cheated Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and banked it all on Hillary Clinton. Their arrogance and corruption undid them, and now instead of recognizing it, they have doubled down on the same crap that got them defeated soundly across the nation.

We have a two party system because of the general ignorance of the population, and the political climate of absolutism. It's us vs. them, and anything they say must be wrong, or else it implies that they might be right on the stuff we really care about. So let's pretend that we really care about that crap, just to keep the fight going.
Samj (1801 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
(+1)
Term limits! Clean the place of the career politicians and elect people who want what's best for the country not for wealth and power. Sounds wonderful, too bad it's not realistic. I'm an Independent because I vote for the person I agree with the most, or most recently AGAINST the person who I disagree with the most.. To lump everyone into a group because they voted for someone is ridiculous. I have yet to find a politician I agree with on every issue... Reagan was close, but he had his problems toward the end as well... But no matter what, we don't need anarchy which is what the losers are promoting now. Join the millions from generations past who lost elections and went on with their lives! Find someone who relates to more of the normal people, and not the fringe on either side. Then run them the next election. Until then, suck it up buttercup.
mapleleaf (1155 D X)
16 Feb 17 UTC
@Lepanto'd - You're a liar. Retract that immediately, or PROVE it.
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
(+1)
I don't doubt you've read the constitution, I wonder how familiar you are with history though. Just because procedures are laid out In a constitution, it doesn't preclude a constitutional crisis. 1800 there were procedures that laid out how to select the president and they were followed. Due to unforeseen circumstances, however, there was an opportunity for Aaron burr, or even John Adams to win in the house. If that had happened, despite the words of the constitution being quite clear on the procedure to follow there would have been civil war. Massachussetts and Virginia had already called up their militia (to march on each other) and if it wasn't for a representative from Delaware, who realized that the upcoming war would likely be fought in his state, the civil war would have come early. The constitution had clearly stated procedures, but because those procedures flew in the face of the spirit of the law, it percipitated a constitutional crisis that nearly lead to bloodshed.
Now what happens when Americans find out that with a viable third party presidential candidate, that in the likely event that there is not majority in the electoral college, the Republican Party wins every time. I could see two outcomes, the reemergence of a two party system through alliances and realignment (as routinely happens in American politics)or a breakdown/overhaul of the system through war, amendment constitutional convention etc. I hardly think that people would accept a second or third place party consistently winning with under 33 percent of the vote. Sure, the words may be written in the constitution, it doesn't mean that they will be accepted.
Regarding your statement about not viewing the election in a vacuum. Again, you should look at some history. In the late twentieth century third party presidential bids have not been accompanied by successful third party insurgencys down ticket. Perot won 20% of the vote, who associated with him sat in congress? No one. George wallace won 5 states and 12% of the vote, how many party members associated with him sat in congress, none. Sure, one day we might have a substantial third party, built from the ground up with several seats in congress. At that point we would probably see parliamentary style coalition politics to decide the executive. But even that would be problematic because out constitution is not built for executive power sharing, one person cpntrolls the branch for four years and he doesn't rely on party support. Whatever would come of that, we can safely say it is FAR off.

Point of the matter is this. You said you read the constitution, and since you did you know that the word party is not mentioned once. The constitution is not suited to parties. After 1800 it was amended so it could account for two parties. Since then the us has had good luck in that it has never had to deal with strong, persistent third parties and more than the occasional election in the house. I honestly don't think it can and why would it? It wasn't written with them in mind. Any successful third party without a reverting to a two party system, in my opinion, would lead to the rejection and overhaul of out governmental system
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
@mapleleaf- you are a vicious, racist, homophobe, and antisemite, a simple word search at webdip will confirm. Glad you've found new folks to bother.
RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
Yes, I'm aware that the Constitution is silent to parties. I have read it, and I do understand it. I'm just not buying into your hypothetical scenarios because they're Turtledovean. And even if they occured I'm not sold that they would come close to creating create a constitutional crisis.

I'm also aware that people don't like it when they do not get their way. We're seeing that every day more and more. However, we have a brilliant governing document that prescribes solutions to the odd scenarios that you mention. If such a situation devolves into a crisis, then it's not a constitutional one. What you're talking about sounds like rebellion or anarchy, not that I think you advocate that. The real crisis is that the majority of the country is ignorant about how and why our government works the way it does. Everyone out there selling the 'But Hillary won the popular vote" line proves that. Everyone who thinks that a president can abolish the Electoral College proves that too.

Finally, there is no two party system, and the document was not written in anticipation that there would be two and/or only two points of view. There are simply two dominant parties now. Lepanto, I appreciate the intelligent debate. I don't agree with anything that you're trotting out, but at least you've put some thought into it, and you're not irrational.
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
It's not turtledovian, it happened! Read Ackerman "The failure of the founding fathers," or don't, just tell me you read the constitution another 15 times and speak in further vague terms about human nature etc. etc.

The constitiution is not brilliant, it is flawed, at BEST you can say that the constitution lasted 70 years before spectacularly failing, leading to a bloody civil war that killed 100s of thousands. Up to that point there was a severe constitutional crisis each decade that threatened the same outcome. The ahistorical worship of the constitution as some perfect religious document is an unfortunate result of our flawed schools that would rather teach dogma over critical thinking.

We have two parties because structurally our first past the post constitutional system cannot support three and awards amalgamation. If you want multiple parties amend the constitution.
There was no Constitutional crisis. For there to be a Constitutional crisis, a situation must occur which the founding fathers had not foreseen and handled in the Constitution. If it was foreseen and handled then it was just a federal crisis, not a Constitutional one.
To be clear, except for the US Civil War, there hasn't been any Constitutional Crisis as there has been no other official conflict between two or more states and there has been no situation arise not coveted by Constitutional procedure.
Not covered... Stupid phone keyboard.
mouse (1825 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
(+1)
RUFFHAUS - while there might not be an explicitly codified two party system, any first-past-the-post system with single-member divisions will trend towards it. I'd also posit that the USA's Electoral College system and (quite frankly, bafflingly poorly implemented) senate exacerbate this even further, but I'm not particularly motivated to actually argue that.
Whether or not there is a clear legal route to decide things, I agree with Lepanto'd that when said clear legal route gives results counter to what a reasonable layperson would suspect the reaction will be interesting. And my opinion of the current set up in the USA is low enough that I can only hope it happens sooner, rather than later.

Lepanto'd - 'fun' fact about anti-semitism: Arabic is a semitic language, same as Hebrew. Not particularly relevant to discussion, just interests me that those who treat it like a be-all and end-all shut down are often rampantly anti-semitic themselves.
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
Mouse- Does quoting nazi guards that dropped zyclon b on victims of the holocaust to mock a jewish person constitute anti semitism to you mouse? Because that's exactly what the individual in question did. He also gleefully used antisemitic slurs and stereotypes constantly. I also completely resent your post immediately associating the topic of anti semitism with merely attempting to shut down a conversation. Maybe you should rethink that. There have been 60 bomb threats on synagogues in the us in the last month, your unfortunately typical suggestion that pointing out anti semitism is mainly a tactic to shut down conversation does not square with modern realities.

You can't handle the truth- even in the most simplistic definition (which at least one law professor constitutional scholar at Yale does not agree with, see below) of a constitutional crisis the United States had had several, including nullification, 1876, and 2000 among others.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/02/25/michael-bloomberg-president-crisis-12th-amendment/%3Fsource%3Ddam?client=safari
gopher27 (1606 D Mod)
16 Feb 17 UTC
For those of you trying to follow mapleleaf's logic, he throws up a shotgun blast of random slanders without evidence, I responded in order to each of his accusations, he asserted that I was not responding to specific "claims" he made, I pointed out that I had responded in detail to his "claims", and his response is that my item by item reply to his comments was too long for him to read.

@Lepanpto'd....at least in the US, there has of late been a wave of hoaxes at places of worship claiming to be bias attacks. A few Christmases ago, while I was visiting family in Houston there was a supposed hate crime at a local mosque that made the national news. The national news networks then failed to report the later result of the police investigation that a member of the mosque was the arsonist. A different mosque in Houston has since claimed to have been shot up by a drive by from a "pick up truck" which turned out to be a hoax perpetrated by members of the congregation. NPR ran a national story in the days after the election about a Black church that was burned down and how "Pro-Trump graffiti" was spray painted all over the building. NPR at least did a follow up to admit that the local police had discovered that an employee of the church had both set the fire and spray painted the graffiti. There have been so many demonstrated hoaxes by Muslims claiming to have been the victims of either harassment or assaults which have been found to be hoaxes almost immediately, my skepticism is elevated. To say that people have claimed to have received "threats" is a highly imperfect measure of identity based crime and animus. And for the record, I say all of this as someone who made a great stink a few years ago in trying to have a member of my University's Board of Regents removed after I witnessed antisemitic behavior by him targeting two different third parties....the University was unwilling to remove him which would have required publicly discussing his behavior but he was not reappointed for the next year.

Additionally, I think your definition of "Constitutional Crisis", irrespective of citation of someone agreeing with you, sets too low of a bar. A fair number of cases that have been adjudicated by the Supreme Court would seem to qualify. Why would nullification be a "Constitutional Crisis" and Proposition 187 not be? Or Colorado's marijuana laws? Why would the Congress questioning the Louisiana election result in 1876 be one and the Congress questioning the Louisiana election results in 1996 not be.
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
i mean I think those with simplistic definitions would say that since they were decided in the Supreme Court they did not constitute constitutional crises. In the case of nullification it was solved be extra institutional means of force, in the case of 1876 it was solved with an extra constitutional commission. 2000 technically was solved in the courts but I think the crisis goes beyond the court case and the partisan decision by the courts did little to assuage that.
Lepanto'd (1009 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
Extra-constitutional not institutional
RUFFHAUS 8 (2490 D)
16 Feb 17 UTC
Mouse, your post above is entirely unclear. My point is that the two party structure is not a system of government. It is a present status. There is no constitutional mandate that there be two parties, or only two parties. This is a myth. You then appear to embrace the common failure to comprehend the purpose of the Electoral College. What your complaint with the Senate is is likewise unclear. What exactly are you saying?

The United States Government is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. There were and still remain very specific and valid reasons for this. The only reasons that the recent election results were other than what the common layperson would expect are that the polling processes and major media are antiquated and corrupt.

I would however agree with your point that the term "antisemitic" is frequently misused. It's a lazy byproduct to the politically correct culture of the day. The most commonly intended meaning associated with this word is something derogatory towards Israel and/or Jewish people in general. The use of the adjective 'Semitic' could indeed refer to a variety of people unaffiliated with Judaism and/or Israel. I would further suggest that it is possible, though uncommon, to be at odds with Israel or even Judaism without being bigoted about it.
You can call the definition simplistic, I call it the Merriam-Webster definition. If I were on my PC at home and not on vacation on my phone, I'd link it for you.
Bolt (1048 D)
17 Feb 17 UTC
I appreciate the civility of the discussion here... especially compared to WebDiplomacy forums. I think that only through reasoned discussion and consensus building will we able to solve problems.
mapleleaf (1155 D X)
17 Feb 17 UTC
(+1)
@Lepanto'd - Obviously, you lack the intellectual sophistication to recognize satire. Poor baby...

BTW, what's a webdip? Some sort of arachnid condiment?
mouse (1825 D)
18 Feb 17 UTC
(+1)
RUFFHAUS - most instances I found specifying the difference between a republic and a democracy indicate a document like the constitution specifying inalienable rights as the primary difference in definition. Given how many amendments there are to said constitution, including redefining aspects of elections multiple times, I fail to see any appreciable difference between the two for the purposes of criticising current electoral practices. I also said precisely nothing about any 'constitutional mandate', only that the system in use will tend toward a two-party system - as, indeed, it has.

If you don't mind clarifying, what exactly about the purpose of the Electoral College did you believe I failed to comprehend? I don't recall stating anything regarding a purpose, just that in it's current format (all votes from a (most) state(s) go to the candidate with the relative majority) it exacerbates the trend towards a 2-party state.

My main complaint about the senate of the USA is probably not one that will appeal to you, in all honesty. My view of a senate (reinforced by how those I am most familiar with function) is that it allows precisely those minor parties disenfranchised by single-member first-past-the-post elections a chance at actually proportional representation, with extended term lengths further balancing single-election swings. Having instead another (effectively) single-member house (given the senators representing each state are elected in separate first-past-the-post elections) entirely defeats this (even while it further reinforces the 'all states matter equally regardless of population', which I will cede is the on-paper reasoning for a senate. Still, you can have states matter equally with a system that actually /tries/ to be remotely proportional, rather than pushing towards a binary choice as hard as possible.

I'd also say it's significantly easier than 'possible, though uncommon' to be at odds with Israel without being bigoted. Its disagreements with Palestine are very much a situation where no-one is anywhere near being in the 'right' of it; there is very much room in the middle to dislike one side more than the other without being remotely bigoted about it.

Page 9 of 10
FirstPreviousNextLast
 

296 replies
Anon (?? D)
09 Apr 17 UTC
KING OF GUNBOAT
gameID=30786 2 day phases 100pt bet WTA Anon gunboat
2 replies
Open
Matticus13 (1300 D)
15 Apr 17 UTC
Seeking replacement for Shift Right variant game
http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=30376#gamePanel

Looking for a replacement for Italy (me). The current position is pretty stable. I'm looking to eliminate all of my press games due to time constraints.
4 replies
Open
The Ambassador (1948 D (B))
08 Mar 17 UTC
Live video feed podcast?
Hi folks - Kaner and I are getting together this time next week for another boozy Dip chat.
27 replies
Open
Captainmeme (1400 D Mod (B))
11 Apr 17 UTC
The Original Diplomacy Variant
As many of you know, the Calhamer estate is being liquidated and the very first self-published Diplomacy board sold for just over $5000 last week. Well, something else interesting from the same sale - a bunch of prototype maps, these likely being from several years before the game was published.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/262922746919
21 replies
Open
David E. Cohen (1000 D)
29 Mar 17 UTC
Calhamer Estate Sale
See below.
30 replies
Open
kaner406 (2181 D Mod (B))
03 Apr 17 UTC
Sitter needed!!
For 7 days, ongoing bourse game. 1 SC power, 3 day phases, no bourse orders needed, only a hotbod to look after the unit on the board. PM me or reply on this thread. Thanks!
1 reply
Open
MerlijnvL (941 D)
31 Mar 17 UTC
Hallo
Hallo
31 replies
Open
didigoose (1532 D)
13 Mar 17 UTC
Hof Points Question
I have 2 questions related to the Hof point calculation

43 replies
Open
zurn (1178 D)
28 Mar 17 UTC
Minor map issues
Is anybody able to make minor cosmetic map changes to the variants, for readability? There's two small things I've noticed:

* Imperial Diplomacy II: there's a connection between Morocco and W. Med, but the map really doesn't show it.
* First Crusade: The Sardinia supply centre in the large map is placed in an odd, almost invisible spot.
0 replies
Open
Oztra (869 D)
18 Mar 17 UTC
(+1)
WebDip members on here
Hi Guys,
just wondering how many people that are from webdip come over here and do stuffs
26 replies
Open
Matticus13 (1300 D)
22 Mar 17 UTC
36 hour GB, Classic map
Classic/Gunboat/36 hour/Anon/Bet: 25. One or two games. List your preference and add your name to sign up. RR +90 preferred. I will create the game(s) and PM password when full. FITE ME ;)
19 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
18 Mar 17 UTC
Looking for a replacement player
http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=30436
Fall of year 1, still solid position to play France here.
0 replies
Open
Decima Legio (1987 D)
19 Oct 16 UTC
V-dip players Map
http://goo.gl/maps/EPgiV
90 replies
Open
nopunin10did (1041 D)
14 Mar 17 UTC
Where is the draw button?
I'm in a "friends" game of Imperial (http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=28912), and I can't for the life of me find any button to either propose a draw or vote on one.
2 replies
Open
DogsRule11 (866 D)
12 Mar 17 UTC
Anyone up to hone their skills in Imperial II?
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=30374
13 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
14 Mar 17 UTC
Live Game
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=30495
1 reply
Open
Decima Legio (1987 D)
22 Dec 16 UTC
Shift Right variant
Anybody interested to try out the shift right / shift left variant?
30 replies
Open
LovelyPinkEgg (1330 D)
10 Mar 17 UTC
Diplomacy Supreme
Oh, because the game crushed and all of us were defeated, only Turkey not, I suppose he won. Am I right?
25 replies
Open
jingliu015 (1000 D X)
13 Mar 17 UTC
FIFA Globe Cup being held
In 2016 FIFA main <a href="https://www.fifa18coins.co.uk">Buy FIFA 18 Coins</a> made it clear that there was to be undoubtedly about the 2016 FIFA Globe Cup being held in South Africa: "Plan A... ". Stadium construction delays, striking workers, security fears, transport problems and the possibility of power outages are running rampant. <a href="https://www.fifa18coins.co.uk">https://www.fifa18coins.co.uk</a>

0 replies
Open
jingliu015 (1000 D X)
13 Mar 17 UTC
FIFA Globe Cup being held
In 2016 FIFA main Sepp Blatter [url=https://www.fifa18coins.co.uk]Cheap FIFA 18 Coins[/url] made it clear that there was to be undoubtedly about the 2016 FIFA
Striking workers, security fears, transport problems and the possibility of power outages are running rampant. [url=https://www.fifa18coins.co.uk]https://www.fifa18coins.co.uk[/url]

0 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
13 Mar 17 UTC
New Fun Game For Fun People
http://www.vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=30468 Password is a, non-fun people are not allowed
2 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
11 Mar 17 UTC
Looking for replacement player for brand new game
http://vdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=30378
No moves made yet.
0 replies
Open
Mapu (2086 D (B))
09 Feb 17 UTC
Diplomacy Historians
When Diplomacy first came out, was the classic board exactly as it is now (pretty much perfect) or did it evolve to where it is today?
6 replies
Open
taylor4 (936 D)
08 Mar 17 UTC
Compromised Log ons
You get any sudden, new box msgs "connection not secure" MODS: hola !
2 replies
Open
Kenpai (939 D X)
03 Mar 17 UTC
Cheaters
I have encountered a hacked account named HQDeevejot who is able to break games by exploiting a glitch, BEWARE
2 replies
Open
Anon (?? D)
20 Feb 17 UTC
New WWIV game- come and play!
http://vdiplomacy.com/board.php?gameID=30278
30 replies
Open
Page 124 of 160
FirstPreviousNextLast
Back to top