SA Decides, 1788-2000: If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > SA Decides, 1788-2000: If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

«‹›53 »

AppropriateUser: Feb 17, 2012

Surely Grant will learn his lesson and his second term will be a huge improvement on the first!

# ? Apr 19, 2016 06:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 00:07

oystertoadfish: Jun 17, 2003

dongsbot 9000 posted:

no one in the 1800s actually thought there would ever be a black president right

that'd be as ridiculous as a anti-masonic president

i think what would offend them even more is that he's actually a mulatto president

# ? Apr 19, 2016 06:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Friends, do you have a moment? A moment to talk about...Sobriety?

("I was inspired to my platform when I received this haircut from a sloshed barber")
Friends, I've been reading the thread and I'm sorry to say I think there's been some misunderstanding going on.
The Prohibition Party, despite their name, are by no means a single-issue group! Black and Russell have failed to attract the support of other anti-alcohol groups specifically because their campaign isn't single-issue. Black and Russell represent the most progressive social positions on a wide range of topics, including public infrastructure funding, anti-corruption, and opportunity. Of particular note, if Black is elected, he promises to push for an amendment to make the Presidential election decided by popular vote. That's right- a vote for James Black is a vote to put Al Gore into the White House- and to keep George W Bush out!

Now, it's true, the Prohibition Party wants to work toward ending the consumption of alcohol (a noble cause), but at its root, this is because alcohol is a means by which Americans limit their own ability to flourish in a civil society.

It's a process by which members of a variety of oppressed groups are effectively held down- a tool of oppression by the overclass, inflicted on workers and the poor across the nation. :ussr:

Alcohol abuse leads to a variety of social problems, as well as causing shirking and underemployment, costing the US economy millions. :911:

Frank, fill the rest of these in for the demo breakdown, we don't pay you to goof off all day. Don't forget to include poland and columbia, but don't use their smilies.

:japan:

This is state of affairs is intolerable to Mr. Black, because at the root of the Prohibition Party's humanist Christianity is a belief in one thing:

radical egalitarianism

("I am very popular with the youth voters-I understand their lifestyle")

The Prohibition Party firmly believes in equal rights and full enfranchisement for all, regardless of gender, class, religion, nationality, or race. This combination of factors places the party more than a hundred years ahead of its time. In many respects, it's the most liberal and the most progressive platform the United States has ever had.

C'mon, friends! Support temperance! Support equality! Support justice!

Down with corruption! Down with prejudice! Down with inequality!

Vote Prohibition Party 1872!

("Once you go Black, you'll never go back!")

Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 19:04 on Apr 19, 2016

# ? Apr 19, 2016 18:47

Jump King: Aug 10, 2011

Not really sure how I feel about a highly religious government though.

# ? Apr 19, 2016 18:50

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Does the Prohibition Party have a position on parrots?

quote:

PARROTS.

There are few persons or things that are more objectionable than the parrot. In the first place, considered merely as a bird, there is altogether too much of him. The graceful little canary in this delicate wire cage is a thing of beauty even in the eyes of the cold and cynical cat, but the large and gaudy parrot in his immense tin penitentiary is about as unfit to ornament a room as would be a savings bank President dressed in a red coat and yellow trousers and confined in a large meat-safe hung on the side of the wall. The parrot would not seem to be so offensively large were it not for his wretched taste in dress. The more colors that perverse bird can heap upon himself the better is he pleased, and his especial fondness for red, yellow, and green, is the unmistakable mark of a low and vulgar nature. Everybody knows that he cannot sing. Indeed, the parrot admits this himself, and devotes all his energies to the imitation of the language of other animals. There is no doubt that he is a good linguist, but he grossly perverts his natural abilities. Hundreds of parrots have learned to speak the cat, the human, and the horse languages, together with half a dozen different dog dialects, but what use have they ever made of these accomplishments? Has a parrot ever translated the remarks of the cat in regard to the family mice into the language of the householder, so that the latter could more effectually lay his places for the extermination of the mice? or has any parrot thought of repeating to the cat the threats that he may have overheard certain disreputable dogs make in reference to her? The parrot scorns any really useful action of this kind. His highest ambition is to try to imitate some human being whose conversation may have made an impression upon him, and, as a rule, he selects for repetition the most silly and objectionable remarks that his model makes. It appears to be the conviction of nearly every parrot that every one whom he meets is an erring Southern citizen, who needs to be conciliated by a series of disconnected platitudes. The effect upon the average man is maddening to the last degree, and it is noticeable that no really kind-hearted and genial person ever keeps a parrot. That offensive style of bird is either kept by misanthropic old ladies or by malignant persons with a special grudge against their neighbors. A good man would no more dream of keeping a parrot than he would of keeping a Postmaster-General addicted to making a few humorous remarks every five or ten minutes during the day; and an intelligent man would sooner listen to an open-air performance by a peripatetic Administration than come within hearing of a parrot of any species whatever.

Mr. W. B. COOPER, of Philadelphia, is either a sanguine philanthropist or a peculiarly ingenious misanthropist, for the two resemble one another so closely that in many cases the differences are imperceptible. Mr. COOPER thinks that the parrot's abilities as a linguist can be greatly developed by education, and he proposes to establish a university for the exclusive education of parrots. It is his opinion that what parrots need is not strychnine or the wringing of their detestable necks, but "intellectual environment." In order to demonstrate the correctness of this view he intends to collect a large number of intelligent parrots, and give them daily lessons by competent masters. Parrots of all ages will be admitted, and there will be infant classes for newly-fledged parrots, as well as classes in languages, grammar, and rhetoric for adult parrots. Frequent examinations will be held, and those parrots who, either because of natural stupidity or willful neglect of study, are unable to pass the examinations will be dismissed. Thus, in the upper classes there will be none but able and learned parrots, and their associations with one another and with Mr. COOPER and his competent masters will constitute the "intelligent environment" of which Mr. COOPER speaks. He cherishes the belief that parrots can be taught to converse as well as the average barber, and to make public speeches that will compare favorably with those of conciliatory Cabinet officers. Very possibly his hopes may be fully accomplished, but it is hardly necessary to say that the world would scarcely gain thereby.

It will be noticed that Mr. COOPER says nothing whatever in regard to the care which will be given to the morals of the parrots of his university. The inference is that his teaching will be strictly secular, and will have nothing whatever to do with morals. His parrots will sit at their desks and pursue their purely intellectual studies, while their morals will be totally neglected. The result will be inevitable. Bad as the ignorant parrot is, the educated parrot will be far worse. Whereas, the parrot in his normal condition is notoriously profane, and much given to repeating the Swinburnian language of the forecastle, the cultured parrot will adopt other and even more detestable vices. If he is taught to speak with fluency and coherence, what is there to prevent him from becoming a confirmed and habitual lawyer, and arguing in open court the insanity of murderers, or convincing intelligent juries that a life of chronic banking necessarily renders a man morally irresponsible for his acts? How are we to prevent educated parrots from entering the ministry--especially since women have already led the way--and preaching voluble sermons setting forth the beauties of some new religion, or demonstrating that blue tailfeathers are among the vestments which a parrot minister may lawfully wear? Worse than all, we shall find it impossible to keep parrots out of Congress. They will point to this able advocate of the silver dollar, or that bold supporter of the right of the working man to regulate his wages by the weight of his bludgeon, and will triumphantly ask if an educated feathered parrot is not the peer of these human statesmen. Having thus put us to shame and silence, the parrots will win votes by the charm of their natural powers, and will crowd the paths to political preferment. We shall have a Congress of unprincipled parrots voting themselves enormous quantities of crackers, and constantly delivering interminable speeches full of glittering and sounding generalities concerning the beauties of lump sugar and the virtues and wants of the parrot race.

Something ought to be done to Mr. COOPER, and the conviction will soon become general that it should be done with a club of a heavy mallet. This nation is already nearly talked to death. What with its politicians, its lecturers, its barbers, and its professional men, it suffers from talk to an extent unparalleled in history. And yet this remorseless COOPER would deliberately induce parrots to add their talk to the deluge of gabble which is overwhelming us. Beyond a doubt, Mr. COOPER is a bold, bad man, and the public will fail in its duty if it permits him to open his parrot university. He ought to be shut up in a small room with a dozen parrots and half a dozen veteran barbers. Twenty-four hours of this would be quite enough. At the end of that time Mr. COOPER'S remains could be given to some medical college. The parrots and the barbers would be left a few hours longer to emulate the excellent example of the Kilkenny cats, and the scheme of educating parrots be thus signally frustrated, to the great good of the nation and of mankind.

# ? Apr 19, 2016 18:50

Empress Theonora: Feb 19, 2001; She was a sword glinting in the depths of night, a lance of light piercing the darkness. There would be no mistakes this time.

dongsbot 9000 posted:

no one in the 1800s actually thought there would ever be a black president right

that'd be as ridiculous as a anti-masonic president

I wish somebody would invent time travel just so somebody could tell Jefferson Davis about Barack Obama.

# ? Apr 19, 2016 18:53

QuoProQuid: Jan 12, 2012; Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

Discendo Vox posted:

BTW QuoProQuid, the election link on the first page still goes to the previous election.

Thanks, fixed.

Platystemon posted:

Does the Prohibition Party have a position on parrots?

This is some good poo poo.

Empress Theonora posted:

I wish somebody would invent time travel just so somebody could tell Jefferson Davis about Barack Obama.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liFwsZaflNM

# ? Apr 19, 2016 18:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

Not really sure how I feel about a highly religious government though.

serioustalk, mostly:
While the Pro Party (that's what the cool kids call it) is led by Protestant Christians who personally believe that America is a Christian nation, it's also committed to complete legal and social equality for those with other religious beliefs.

Russell, the VP, is the one more committed to the "Christian Nation" thing, but even there, the reality is that these sorts of aphorisms were largely reflections of a general desire for a virtuous civil society, expressed in the common language of the day, which happened to be Christian. The Prohibition Party did eventually become fringey, single-issue, and die-hard Christian, but this was largely in response to electoral failures that saw the early leadership pushed from its positions and replaced with an insurgency that actively supported the immediate, non-incremental banning of alcohol on a national scale. Black and Russell were one of the only real times that this sort of platform had a big-tent, inclusive ideology with a broader platform and appeal.

Platystemon posted:

Does the Prohibition Party have a position on parrots?

Mr. Black is skeptical, but he willing to support research to see if Parrots are intelligent, if it is truly the will of the people. He is not in favor of Mr. Cooper's school, and shares the general position of the New York Times on the sinful nature of talkative, intoxicated barbers. The position of the Prohibition Party at this time is that parrots are not ensoulled and to do posses nor deserve the rights of citizens.

edit: Gosh darn it Frank, you had one job

QuoProQuid posted:

This is some good poo poo.

edit 2: A quick search shows Mr. Cooper mentioned in Scientific American, too.

Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 19:09 on Apr 19, 2016

# ? Apr 19, 2016 19:03

Jump King: Aug 10, 2011

Ok you've almost won me over, but what do you think about the secret presidential choice Benjamin G. Brown?

# ? Apr 19, 2016 19:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

Ok you've almost won me over, but what do you think about the secret presidential choice Benjamin G. Brown?

A fine man in many respects, who shares many views with the Pro Party. We would be proud to work with him to ensure that the efforts of Reconstruction do not go to waste. We also share his desire to improve the lot and standing of our nation's many immigrant peoples. At the same time, it is deeply regrettable that he has not recognized the rightful equality of women in American society. Only the Prohibition Party is committed to complete ballot access for US citizens, regardless of "color, race, former social condition, sex, or nationality."

Vote for the Prohibition Party: You can't spell "intersectionality" without several letters that are also in our name. Does "liberal republican" have a T in it? I didn't think so.

# ? Apr 19, 2016 19:20

Popero: Apr 17, 2001; .406/.553/.735

Black has a lot of ideas that sound good in theory, but what is he actually going to do about Reconstruction

# ? Apr 19, 2016 19:25

just rust: Oct 23, 2012

Sad to think that after all these years America is still waiting for their first parrot president.

This 2016 election cycle looks promising, though.

# ? Apr 19, 2016 19:27

Nckdictator: Sep 8, 2006; Just..someone

Discendo Vox posted:

That's right- a vote for James Black is a vote to put Al Gore into the White House- and to keep George W Bush out!

The only Bushes I know are Underground Railroad supporters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obadiah_Bush) and Women's rights activists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abigail_Bush) , why on Earth would we want to keep this progressive family out of the White House?

These Gore's on the other hand seem to have taken up arms in support of the Slaveocrat gang down South (https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/z/zelnick-gore.html http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~goredata/isaacgoredescendantchart.txt ) , do we really need someone in the White House who has the ghost of Jeff Davis whispering in his ear?

# ? Apr 19, 2016 19:36

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Popero posted:

Black has a lot of ideas that sound good in theory, but what is he actually going to do about Reconstruction

Actually enforce laws on the books in the region, not be hilariously bad at staffing/corruption? Basically, all the things the Grant administration promised, then failed to accomplish. The primary downside I can think of (if you see it as a downside) is that there will be major expanses in federal government regulation, and Southern states are likely to be subject to a great deal of financial pressure for several decades as Reconstruction continues. Notably, the Pro Party is opposed to cycling appointments, so the more competent Grant admin appointees will be kept on.

# ? Apr 19, 2016 20:04

i say swears online: Mar 4, 2005

I think you'll find the Ku Klux Klan is also protestant and temperate :godwin:

# ? Apr 19, 2016 20:41

Pakled: Aug 6, 2011; WE ARE SMART

Aliquid posted:

I think you'll find the Ku Klux Klan is also protestant and temperate

Indeed.

# ? Apr 19, 2016 20:51

SlothfulCobra: Mar 27, 2011

The biggest problem I have with James Black is that he's so obscure I can't really find much information on him. There may be a bunch of flowery little extras tacked onto his platform, but they are all secondary to one, singular thing he and his party hold before all others. It's in the name, prohibition. You may say that he favors a gradual shift away from drinking rather than pushing for a ban, but that only means that he is promising to do a lovely job at implementing his highest priority issue, so he will be spending most of his time in office being totally ineffectual. And really, why should we expect this obscure Pennsylvanian lawyer who has spent the last three years publishing temperance pamphlets with his rinky-dink little party that is only on the ballot in six states to be any better at dealing with congress than the man who beat the south? I'm not very into alcohol myself, but there are vastly more important issues facing the nation right now, and I don't see a drat thing in his platform about reconstruction.

It's also interesting that you bring up instituting a popular vote instead of an electoral college, seeing as how at this point in history, the one time it's come up it helped forestall good ol' genocidal Jackson from taking the reins of power in favor of the thread-favorite Adams dynasty. It may become relevant again at some point in the near future, but that's a matter for another day entirely. And "Gore?" Ha! Next you'll be telling us all that one day a series of tubes will connect all peoples within and without our nation for the primary purpose of making fun of cats! That has no bearing on 1872!

And speaking of Jackson, there's an issue that most people don't generally care about because it mainly concerns the territories, far away from most of the states' population centers, but there have been a series of wars with the Indians burning in the background, and there's only one candidate who even has peace with the Indians anywhere on his priority list, and that's Grant. It's no small task to ensure that the peace is kept, and any other candidate would just let the army out in the frontier go about the business of slaughter as usual out of sheer apathy for conflict that they have no perception of. This is one of the few times where a candidate's military experience is actually going to be useful beyond being mere leadership experience. Although, I suppose the premature deaths of people who would otherwise still be dead by today may have less pull with goons than some theoretical ephemeral rights being offered by a man who can't be proven too incompetent to deliver by dint of obscurity. Past lives don't matter.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 00:02

Savidudeosoo: Feb 12, 2016; Pelican, a Bag Man

Vote Grant '72. #PastLivesMatter

# ? Apr 20, 2016 00:36

Lord of Pie: Mar 2, 2007

A vote for Prohibition is a vote against Hard Cider

# ? Apr 20, 2016 00:42

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Cthulhu Dreams posted:

Stats are hard to find, but the best I can see is that US alcohol consumption in the 1800s was TWENTY SEVEN POINT FIVE liters of pure ethanol per person, which is god drat bananas. That is almost twice what the Russians drink today. TWICE.

Like I want to call bullshit on this because it doesn't seem physically possible, but then again in another thread I just learned that "Gin Craze" was something you can google (TL;DR Britian discovers gin the entire lower class is drunk all the time from then on.) Kinda hypocritical, too, if you consider that in the Guinness book of World Records, while the book ( so to speak) is closed on consumption records, they do list the alcohol consumption of William Pitt the younger, British PM. Over the course of a year, he consumed: 574 bottles of claret, 854 bottles of maderia, and 2410 bottles of port.

Work those numbers out on a daily basis and it gets you a little drunk just looking at them

PS Parrot post awesome post

# ? Apr 20, 2016 01:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

SlothfulCobra posted:

The biggest problem I have with James Black is that he's so obscure I can't really find much information on him. There may be a bunch of flowery little extras tacked onto his platform, but they are all secondary to one, singular thing he and his party hold before all others. It's in the name, prohibition.

Dear Friend, I'd urge you to review our missives; the record is clear that the Pro Party Platform focuses on alcohol as the crisis of the time, but that it stems from a deeper commitment to fundamental civic participation and American rights:

Discendo Vox posted:

The Prohibition Party, despite their name, are by no means a single-issue group! Black and Russell have failed to attract the support of other anti-alcohol groups specifically because their campaign isn't single-issue. Black and Russell represent the most progressive social positions on a wide range of topics, including public infrastructure funding, anti-corruption, and opportunity.

Don't take our word for it- consult your voter guide!

QuoProQuid posted:

He seeks to end the practice of patronage and stop �removals from public service for mere differences of political opinion.� He seeks fixed and moderate salaries for government employees and the establishment of oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability and minimize corruption. He also wants to ensure the direct election of the President, Vice-President, and Senators, a radical proposal that hasn�t been embraced since Jackson. Even more radically, James Black seeks women�s suffrage and has railed against voting restrictions caused by �color, race, former social condition, sex, or nationality.� He holds similar views on immigration, arguing that the United States should accept all immigrants, regardless of education or origin. Black believes in bimetallism, a system allowing the unrestricted currency of two metals as legal tender and wants to turn the telegraph, railroads, and water travel into public utilities.

The historical record is limited, but its message is clear: #ProParty #BlackPower

SlothfulCobra posted:

You may say that he favors a gradual shift away from drinking rather than pushing for a ban, but that only means that he is promising to do a lovely job at implementing his highest priority issue, so he will be spending most of his time in office being totally ineffectual. And really, why should we expect this obscure Pennsylvanian lawyer who has spent the last three years publishing temperance pamphlets with his rinky-dink little party that is only on the ballot in six states to be any better at dealing with congress than the man who beat the south? I'm not very into alcohol myself, but there are vastly more important issues facing the nation right now, and I don't see a drat thing in his platform about reconstruction.

There, is a difference between gradual social persuasion and ineffectiveness, you know. We've had a grand example of the latter from our current President, who, God save him, has kept very poor company: (from the wikipedia page devoted to Grant Administration scandals

"Grant was personally honest with money matters. However, he was extremely careless with his associates.Historian C. Vann Woodward stated that Grant had neither the training nor temperament to fully comprehend the complexities of rapid economic growth, industrialization, and western expansionism. Grant himself had been educated and trained at West Point in subjects as conduct, French, mathematics, artillery, cavalry tactics, and infantry. He had come from a humble background where men of superior intelligence and ability were threats rather than assets. Instead of responding with trust and warmth to men of talent, education, and culture, he turned to his military friends from the Civil War and to politicians as new as himself. A majority of Grant's cabinet had studied at or graduated from various colleges and universities, including Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. Grant's son, Grant Jr., stated that Ulysses S. Grant was "incapable of supposing his friends to be dishonest." President Grant's Attorney General George H. Williams stated that Grant's "trusting heart was the weakness of his character". Williams stated that Grant was slow to make friends, however, once friendships were made "they took hold with hooks of steel."

The Pro Party is committed to political appointment based on merit, not on personal friendships. Effective, clean-living leadership will bring Reconstruction back on track and restore our nation's honour and finances.

~~#BetonBlack #Figurativelygamblingisasintousprobably #Votesarentbets~~ We're #intheblack

SlothfulCobra posted:

It's also interesting that you bring up instituting a popular vote instead of an electoral college, seeing as how at this point in history, the one time it's come up it helped forestall good ol' genocidal Jackson from taking the reins of power in favor of the thread-favorite Adams dynasty. It may become relevant again at some point in the near future, but that's a matter for another day entirely. And "Gore?" Ha! Next you'll be telling us all that one day a series of tubes will connect all peoples within and without our nation for the primary purpose of making fun of cats! That has no bearing on 1872!

We must not look to the past, but to the future! Jackson was forestalled from office by electoral tie-splitting schemes, it's true, but while he was given the majority popular vote, only of those whom were allowed to vote at the time. We must strive to create a better America for all its citizens, not merely those who have the ear (and the chequebook) of those in power, as has been the pattern of late.

SlothfulCobra posted:

And speaking of Jackson, there's an issue that most people don't generally care about because it mainly concerns the territories, far away from most of the states' population centers, but there have been a series of wars with the Indians burning in the background, and there's only one candidate who even has peace with the Indians anywhere on his priority list, and that's Grant. It's no small task to ensure that the peace is kept, and any other candidate would just let the army out in the frontier go about the business of slaughter as usual out of sheer apathy for conflict that they have no perception of. This is one of the few times where a candidate's military experience is actually going to be useful beyond being mere leadership experience. Although, I suppose the premature deaths of people who would otherwise still be dead by today may have less pull with goons than some theoretical ephemeral rights being offered by a man who can't be proven too incompetent to deliver by dint of obscurity. Past lives don't matter.

I have two words for you my friend: radical equality. It's true, there's little record of the position of the Pro Politicians on the Indian Question, but it isn't hard to guess what their approach would be to these transgressions.

Vote Black '72. #BlackLivesMatter #BlackRadicals, unite!

Lord of Pie posted:

A vote for Prohibition is a vote against Hard Cider

A vote for Grant is a vote for Whiskey (and like 12 other massive corruption scandals):

#Vote72 #ImBackinBlack

Discendo Vox has issued a correction as of 01:37 on Apr 20, 2016

# ? Apr 20, 2016 01:33

Thump!: Nov 25, 2007; Look, fat, here's the fact, Kulak!

To be honest, if I was alive at all in the 19th century, I'd just be drunk all the time too.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 01:35

Jump King: Aug 10, 2011

I truly think Secret Candidate Ben Brown is a good choice here. Grant policies without corruption, seems more progressive in most ways actually. Although, I don't know what his policies are like toward Natives and the lack direct military experience might not help him there.

Probably if Greeley won the election, Ben Brown would not be supported by the electoral college and we'd either get a conservative rear end in a top hat or the split vote would allow Grant to win. Hard to say really.

I think I'm going to vote for the Prohibitionist party, it's certainly no weirder than some of the parties we elected, but this one might maybe bring good things.

How do we feel about bimetalism again? That's an issue I cannot wrap my head around.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:19

Otherkinsey Scale: Jul 17, 2012; Just a little bit of sunshine!

Thump! posted:

To be honest, if I was alive at all in the 19th century, I'd just be drunk all the time too.

I'm alive in the 21st century and I'm not clear on why I'm not drunk all the time

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:21

karmicknight: Aug 21, 2011

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

How do we feel about bimetalism again? That's an issue I cannot wrap my head around.

Bimetalism was supported by Hamilton (pbuh) making it a worthy issue in the eyes of American orthodoxy.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:28

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Nebakenezzer posted:

Like I want to call bullshit on this because it doesn't seem physically possible, but then again in another thread I just learned that "Gin Craze" was something you can google (TL;DR Britian discovers gin the entire lower class is drunk all the time from then on.) Kinda hypocritical, too, if you consider that in the Guinness book of World Records, while the book ( so to speak) is closed on consumption records, they do list the alcohol consumption of William Pitt the younger, British PM. Over the course of a year, he consumed: 574 bottles of claret, 854 bottles of maderia, and 2410 bottles of port.

Work those numbers out on a daily basis and it gets you a little drunk just looking at them

PS Parrot post awesome post

I got curious and actually did the math. That's 3838 bottles of wine in one year, or 10.5 bottles per day. That averages out to 0.6 bottles per hour (assuming he's awake for 16 hours and asleep for 8 every night instead of binge drinking, doing cocaine and snuff, and only sleeping two hours a night; using a 24 hour model, it's 0.4 bottles per hour).

A standard wine bottle is 750 ml. This gives us 2,878,500 milliliters of wine (or 2878.5 liters, or 760.41 gallons) per year. Assuming all wine is of these standard size bottles and every drop is drunk, he's drinking 7886.30 milliliters (or 7.88 liters, or 2 gallons) of wine per day.

Unfortunately I can't really estimate the amount of pure ethanol that is, because the three types of wine all have different average ABVs (in particular, port is fortified to be as high as 20% ABV or more while average wine is 12.5% to 14.5%). If we were to just make a blanket assumption that it's all 14% ABV, your average bottle of wine has 105 ml of alcohol in it. That gives us 402,990 ml of pure ethanol per year (or 402.99 liters, or 106.45 gallons). This would work out to 1102 or 1104 ml of ethanol per day (depends on how you round it). That's 1.10 liters, or 0.29 gallons.

The actual amount of pure ethanol is likely higher because port is a fortified wine, but the dude was consuming at least 1 liter of pure ethanol per day. At that rate, you may as well skip the middleman and just find a chemist to give you the unadulterated stuff.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:34

QuoProQuid: Jan 12, 2012; Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

How do we feel about bimetalism again? That's an issue I cannot wrap my head around.

My imperfect understanding is that it would likely cause massive inflation, which would help rural farmers in the short-term, but it would basically wipe out the Federal Reserve's gold supply as private entities swapped their silver for dollars, and then dollars for gold which they could then sell to foreign governments for even more money. With all the gold sucked out of the country, the United States would have serious problems doing business in the international market as silver was not accepted as a legitimate metal to back a currency on by any other countries.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:36

Jump King: Aug 10, 2011

This is the worst election.

# ? Apr 20, 2016 02:51

Nckdictator: Sep 8, 2006; Just..someone

Man, Nast was brutal

(Also, I don't think he liked Victoria)

# ? Apr 20, 2016 03:19

Nebakenezzer: Sep 13, 2005; The Mote in God's Eye

Nckdictator posted:

(Also, I don't think he liked Victoria)

I actually thought this last one was against free love (or it's 19th century equivalent)

e:

chitoryu12 posted:

The actual amount of pure ethanol is likely higher because port is a fortified wine, but the dude was consuming at least 1 liter of pure ethanol per day. At that rate, you may as well skip the middleman and just find a chemist to give you the unadulterated stuff.

The world record entry doesn't mention if this was during his time as PM or not, I like to think it was

Nebakenezzer has issued a correction as of 03:52 on Apr 20, 2016

# ? Apr 20, 2016 03:49

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

How do we feel about bimetalism again? That's an issue I cannot wrap my head around.

Here's my best understanding of the situation, which is quite limited. Taking off my Black campaign hat for this one. Three basic approaches here:

1. Fiat currency- great, especially in modern times with good controls and an economy that makes you a reserve currency for exchange purposes, but not well understood at the time, and raises a greater risk of devaluation and exchange problems. This is what was running at the time- the US went to it to, as far as I can tell, avoid coinage and fraud problems during the Civil War. It's not clear to me how viable this was long-term, because fit currency was a lot harder to control at that point in history.
2. Gold Standard- this is what we actually went to after the 72 election. It has a lot of the same problems of bimetallism- limited flexibility, e.g., plus the very limited supply can be abused. The gold standard is associated with the antecedents of the gilded age because of how easily it could be controlled by the people who would become insanely, stupidly wealthy during the period.
3. Bimetallism- best of both worlds, right? Well, it's generally regarded as less vulnerable than the gold standard to abuse and has more flexibility (the government controls all exchange rates under the versions that people were actually advocating for at the time), but inflation via the silver supply does seem like a real risk. Milton Friedman says that going to the gold standard after the Civil War was a mistake and bimetallism would have been better, but it's Friedman so you can't really trust him.

It seems like all of the options were bad- it's hard to say which would ultimately have been preferable, with so many unknowns. Probably why it remained a source of massive contention for more than a hundred years.

Also, Goon heroes throughout history have been fans of it

# ? Apr 20, 2016 04:53

SlothfulCobra: Mar 27, 2011

QuoProQuid posted:

My imperfect understanding is that it would likely cause massive inflation, which would help rural farmers in the short-term, but it would basically wipe out the Federal Reserve's gold supply as private entities swapped their silver for dollars, and then dollars for gold which they could then sell to foreign governments for even more money. With all the gold sucked out of the country, the United States would have serious problems doing business in the international market as silver was not accepted as a legitimate metal to back a currency on by any other countries.

The thing is, you can do that sort of thing with just the gold standard too. Every time there's a fluctuation in the market price of gold that the Treasury hasn't kept up with, people can take advantage of it. Sell gold to the treasury when the dollars to gold exchange rate is higher than the market, and convert dollars to gold when the rate's lower than the market. That's why even before Nixon finally killed the gold standard, there were a whole lot of restrictions over who could even access the federal gold storage.

I don't know of any countries that actually did bimetallism, so I can't say for sure what the actual effects of it would be,

# ? Apr 20, 2016 15:48

Thump!: Nov 25, 2007; Look, fat, here's the fact, Kulak!

Carrasco posted:

I'm alive in the 21st century and I'm not clear on why I'm not drunk all the time

Weed is way better and more available than it was back then :shrug:

# ? Apr 20, 2016 16:50

Vavrek: Mar 2, 2013; I like your style hombre, but this is no laughing matter. Assault on a police officer. Theft of police property. Illegal possession of a firearm. FIVE counts of attempted murder. That comes to... 29 dollars and 40 cents. Cash, cheque, or credit card?

I just want to be able to vote for a Brown/Wilson ticket, like in the good ol' days. They're the two candidates I most like, I think. Why not?

Oh. Right.

Jefferson :argh:

# ? Apr 20, 2016 19:51

Ibogaine: Aug 11, 2015

MMM Whatchya Say posted:

This is the worst election.

I think it's brilliant. It's like the old days of Adams and Jay again, when you just looked for what you liked best in a candidate and ignored the rest. At least the next president won't be elected by a soviet style 90%+ result, and I am genuinely curious who will win.

In a way, it's the worst of times and it's the best of times.

# ? Apr 21, 2016 22:21

Platystemon: Feb 13, 2012; BREADS

Who�s on the currency in the Goon timeline?

# ? Apr 21, 2016 22:43

Lycus: Aug 5, 2008; Half the posters in this forum have been made up. This website is a goddamn ghost town.

Platystemon posted:

Who’s on the currency in the Goon timeline?

Every bill an Adams.

# ? Apr 21, 2016 22:45

QuoProQuid: Jan 12, 2012; Tr*ckin' and F*ckin' all the way to tha
T O P

Platystemon posted:

Who�s on the currency in the Goon timeline?

$1.00: First-Term John Adams
$5.00: Second-Term John Adams
$10.00: Third-Term John Adams
$20.00: Vice-President John Adams
$50.00: President John Quincy Adams
$100.00: Vice President Charles Francis Adams, Sr.

You can tell the bills apart because John Adams gets increasingly short and fat as the denomination increases.

# ? Apr 21, 2016 22:54

Corek: May 11, 2013; by R. Guyovich

QuoProQuid posted:

You can tell the bills apart because John Adams gets increasingly short and fat as the denomination increases.

# ? Apr 21, 2016 23:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 10, 2024 00:07

Ibogaine: Aug 11, 2015

QuoProQuid posted:

$1.00: First-Term John Adams
$5.00: Second-Term John Adams
$10.00: Third-Term John Adams
$20.00: Vice-President John Adams
$50.00: President John Quincy Adams
$100.00: Vice President Charles Francis Adams, Sr.

You can tell the bills apart because John Adams gets increasingly short and fat as the denomination increases.

Is the capital called Adams or Adamstown? And is the capitol called "His Rotundity"?

# ? Apr 21, 2016 23:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > SA Decides, 1788-2000: If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve.

«‹›53 »