Dan Quaile? - Page 2

Rasputin · July 14, 2001, 08:47

the other strange thing about us politics is the way people are registered as a democrat or republican voter, i dont undertand why you have to tell them who you are going to vote for when you register .... or am i misisng sometihng here ???

Sabre2th · July 14, 2001, 09:37

I think this has gone a bit too far off-topic.

Adagio · July 14, 2001, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabre2th

I think this has gone a bit too far off-topic.

how come, the next thing they start talking about is how the voting system works in the different countries

JamesJKirk · July 14, 2001, 17:26

Quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944

It will not happen in my life time or your or even my grandchildren (8 and 5) lifetime. They have to call for a Constitutional Congress section. The bill I believe will have to start in the House and pass and then move to the Senate and pass and then sent to all 50 State Legislator to be pass and then to the President to be sign into law. It would be the same old game. Right now the Demo would pass it and the Republican would not pass it. In 04 if a Democrat was President than the Demo would not pass it and the Republican would.

This isn't correct, it has to get a 2/3s majority in the House and the Senate, and then it has to be passed by a simple majority (50%+1) by 3/4 of the state legislatures, which is 37, and the president has nothing to do with it, it's part of the separation of powers I guess. It's still quite a process and you can see why it's only been done 27 times in about 212 years

Rasputin- to answer your question briefly, you can register in a party and vote for whoever you want to in a general election, but not in primary elections. You don't have to register to a party though, the number of independents in steadily increasing. Registering for a party is how you become a member of a party

Admiral PJ · July 14, 2001, 17:31

Roosevelt, Washington and Abraham Lincoln were 'great' presidents ,
maybe even JF Kennedy was good apart from his connections with the mafia and contribution to M.Monroes death.
But since Reagen and including him you haven't had that good presidents as far as i'm concerned..
Reagen aggrevated the Cold war as much as finishing it , Clinton lyed before court about his affairs and was just annoying

the new G Bush a bit of an airhead, but as long as dosen't ban abortions or anything too mad he shouldn't be too bad.
Just be glad you didn't have Margaret Thatcher though, she introduced a poll tax to tax everyone tonnes no matter how poor they were, resulting in lots of riots, and destroying much of britains infrastructure and economy.

I really would like to see Civ3 with different leaders in each era etc, maybe Winston Churchill with a +2 happiness morale for all british/ally cities.

AdmiralPJ
King of the United States

Adagio · July 14, 2001, 17:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
I really would like to see Civ3 with different leaders in each era etc, maybe Winston Churchill with a +2 happiness morale for all british/ally cities.

Not a bad idea at first thought, when some leaders increases income other leaders increases happiness

Admiral PJ · July 14, 2001, 18:53

It is a bit strange you can play for 8000 years as one leader.. thats been the only main problem i've had with civ games.

The solution could be to have you change leaders every 50 or 100 years, maybe letting you have elections/ civil wars/coups to decide what leader you get the next 'parliament' term.

I'm not sure how this would affect gameplay, maybe i should make another thread.. I was considering trying this in one of my games but it is pretty complex.
Perhaps if 2 countries are in a war, and 2 new leaders are elected for each - the new leaders might be more able to make peace ending the long destructive war.

The power behind one man (or woman) as a leader is a great factor in a country.
Maybe civ3 will have something along these lines a bit with their 'great people' and generals.

AdmiralPJ

Adagio · July 15, 2001, 05:39

I guess this it pretty hard to get into the game, cuz what about the player, just because your country gets another "leader" you wont change strategy, you will always be the same, and to be bothered with some msg every 50 years about a leader change would be pretty annoying

Rasputin · July 15, 2001, 06:26

i guess this is where succession games become pretty cool .. differnet players leading the civ for pre ordained lengths of time...

would be good to get a way of doing this well in MP , like play one session with one group then hand over control to another group for next session... could be fun, different players will play differently .....

Provost Harrison · July 15, 2001, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by BigRich

Indeed

You know the quote - 'Men, coffee and chocolate - the 'Rich'er the better?

Heh, I've never heard that quote before, but I am going to have to remember that one

campmajor! · July 16, 2001, 07:39

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
stupid american bashers.

also, bill clinton was a great president. im a registerred republican, but i will say that he was a great president. he did many great things for our country. and i bet Bush messes it all up again with his tax cut.

oh well.

when i graduate from college i'm thinking about moving to the netherlands. i just don't want to learn dutch.

Good choice!

Look, I'm sorry if I have offended anyone. Actually I think Bill Clinton was a great president. To us Dutch it was strange how his private behaving overshadowed his behaving as a president...

It is not my intention to say that one country is better than some other country. Like some of you already said Nationalism has caused to many wars.

Actually most Dutch people aren't very nationalistic, except when it comes to soccer...