Page 2 of 2

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:29 pm UTC
by chrisjwmartin
Sableagle wrote:Why isn't Malala Yousafzai on the list?

Because she's an over-rated dimwit pushed into an undeserved prominence by her cynical father?

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:43 pm UTC
by Sableagle
chrisjwmartin wrote:
Sableagle wrote:Why isn't Malala Yousafzai on the list?

Because she's an over-rated dimwit pushed into an undeserved prominence by her cynical father?

Well, that wouldn't be too much of a change from the current situation, then, would it?

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:31 pm UTC
by da Doctah
ucim wrote:Every ten years there should be a census taken of all persons living in the United States. There should be one question: "Do you know this person?", applied to each and every other person in the country. The results would be tallied into a national notoriety score.

This feeds my definition of "famous": If the number of people that know who you are is greater than the number of people that you know who they are, you are famous.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:31 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
I guess that makes me famous, because having prosopagnosia I have a hard time remembering anybody, and find that what seem to be "strangers" frequently know me.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:05 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
chrisjwmartin wrote:
Sableagle wrote:Why isn't Malala Yousafzai on the list?

Because she's an over-rated dimwit pushed into an undeserved prominence by her cynical father?

Fuck off.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 1:09 am UTC
by teelo
Should just jump straight to the jousting tournament, and make them all a fight to the death. Will solve all the worlds problems.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:40 am UTC
by dtilque
gmalivuk wrote:
dtilque wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:We've already tried having an egomaniacal billionaire who believes racist conspiracy theories about the media. It's not working out so great.


OK, we got one rotten apple. And there's other billionaires I wouldn't vote for either, or for that matter, walk across the street to piss on them if they were on fire. But none are in the spaceship group.

I was talking specifically about Elon Musk.


OK, I was unaware of that about Musk. But I mostly am familiar with him as a rockstar of the EV and private spaceship fandoms. Should have figured a rockstar would have unpalatable opinions. They almost always do.

So lets just skip the billionaires for the list. [voice=Emily Litella]Never mind[/voice]

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 1:14 pm UTC
by Sableagle
teelo wrote:Should just jump straight to the jousting tournament, and make them all a fight to the death. Will solve all the worlds problems.

"Anyone who wants to rule the world should be knocked off a horse, hacked and battered with a war axe and decapitated," then?

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 1:16 pm UTC
by jpers36
gmalivuk wrote:[...]Jeff Bezos would also make a terrible president, though I suppose he might not buy into antisemitic conspiracy theories about the media like Musk and Trump both do.


Probably not, since as a media magnate he's the target of some of their conspiracy theories himself.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:45 pm UTC
by Lothario O'Leary
DavidSh wrote:I wonder how many, if any, of those 5753 are natural-born citizens of the United States.
IIRC, there's an American actor somewhere in that line, but I forgot who they were.
[EDIT: not the one I meant - in particular, they were male - but one candidate is Catherine Oxenberg.]

Michael Torsten Kreuger (b. 1983) is possibly the first (or, at least, the first adult) natural-born US citizen in the line, somewhere in the 110s or thereabouts ("possibly" because there are some marriage-related problems in his ancestry, and the WARGS list does not, in fact, include him); he would still be ineligible due to age, however (as he's only 33 years old).
Pfhorrest wrote:I guess that makes me famous, because having prosopagnosia I have a hard time remembering anybody, and find that what seem to be "strangers" frequently know me.
Same, though perhaps to a lesser extent.


Unrelatedly, fun fact: there were several (short) periods in US history when the line of succession was completely empty, and at least one day (July 10, 1850) when the only person in the line of succession was ineligible for the presidency.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:44 pm UTC
by Mikeski
Sableagle wrote:
teelo wrote:Should just jump straight to the jousting tournament, and make them all a fight to the death. Will solve all the worlds problems.

"Anyone who wants to rule the world should be knocked off a horse, hacked and battered with a war axe and decapitated," then?

I believe she said, "it would solve all the world's problems if every American (except 1, I guess) were brutally murdered."

Charming, no?

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:52 pm UTC
by Sableagle
Somewhat inaccurate, I think.

Aside from anything else, that's only 325.7 million people, and Thanos wants half of 7.442 billion, so you've still got another 3395.3 million more to nominate before he'll go away. Also malaria and HIV would still be around and China's contributing a lot to climate change.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:20 pm UTC
by drachefly
Lothario O'Leary wrote:Michael Torsten Kreuger (b. 1983) is possibly the first (or, at least, the first adult) natural-born US citizen in the line, somewhere in the 110s or thereabouts ("possibly" because there are some marriage-related problems in his ancestry, and the WARGS list does not, in fact, include him); he would still be ineligible due to age, however (as he's only 33 years old).


Not anymore, unless he's spent an extended period cruising around near the speed of light.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:53 pm UTC
by Lothario O'Leary
drachefly wrote:
Lothario O'Leary wrote:Michael Torsten Kreuger (b. 1983) is possibly the first (or, at least, the first adult) natural-born US citizen in the line, somewhere in the 110s or thereabouts ("possibly" because there are some marriage-related problems in his ancestry, and the WARGS list does not, in fact, include him); he would still be ineligible due to age, however (as he's only 33 years old).


Not anymore, unless he's spent an extended period cruising around near the speed of light.
No, as it turns out, the 33 is right - it's the 1983 that is wrong.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:33 pm UTC
by teelo
Mikeski wrote:
Sableagle wrote:
teelo wrote:Should just jump straight to the jousting tournament, and make them all a fight to the death. Will solve all the worlds problems.

"Anyone who wants to rule the world should be knocked off a horse, hacked and battered with a war axe and decapitated," then?

I believe she said, "it would solve all the world's problems if every American (except 1, I guess) were brutally murdered."

Charming, no?

Sounds good to me. Lets make it happen. The rest of the world will laugh, roll our eyes, and say "typical murricans".

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:24 pm UTC
by Sableagle
They're workin' on it, a'right?

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$state ... pe=bubbles

As always, "Wtf, South Africa and Cote d'Ivoire?" but also: "WTFF, Nauru?!?"

USA: 9.67 men and 2.59 women per 100,000 people per year murdered. That's 50,800 women and 49,200 men, possibly partly because of those murder rates. So, that's a 99.9803% chance over 1 year and a 99.0220% chance over 50 years for a man, and a 99.9949% chance over 1 year and a 99.7454% chance over 50 years for a woman to not be murdered. If you get killed by a drunk driver or distract yourself sending a text and drive off a cliff, that counts as not being murdered, right?

Well, St Louis, Missouri, is workin' on it, at least.
At the end of 2017, St. Louis had 205 murders in a city of fewer than 315,000.

65 per 100,000 per year is kind of Guatemala - Tanzania - Uganda territory, with Rwanda, CAR, Zimbabwe, Jamaica, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, CDR, Burundi, Colombia, Angola and, of course, Cote d'Ivoire and South Africa still worse.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:47 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Sableagle wrote:USA: 9.67 men and 2.59 women per 100,000 people per year murdered. That's 50,800 women and 49,200 men

Huh?

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:12 pm UTC
by Sableagle
gmalivuk wrote:
Sableagle wrote:USA: 9.67 men and 2.59 women per 100,000 people per year murdered. That's 50,800 women and 49,200 men

Huh?

Sorry. That "100,000 people" is 50,800 women and 49,200 men because the US population is not a 50:50 split. It's close, but there's a bit of difference in life expectancy skewing the percentages. If you want the totals, it's 325.7 M total, so 31495 men and 8436 women murdered per year. I was looking for likelihood of being murdered, so the breakdown of the 100,000 population was the bit I wanted, not the breakdown of total murders per year.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:00 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Seems like a more straightforward way would just be to see what fraction of all deaths are from murder.

In the US in 2015, 1,373,404 men and 1,339,226 women died, and 14,274 and 3,519 of those deaths were from murder, respectively. [Source]

So that's a 98.96% chance for a man to die from something other than murder, and a 99.74% chance for a woman.

(Of course in both our cases those numbers aren't age-adjusted.)

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:38 pm UTC
by Mikeski
Sableagle wrote:so 31495 men and 8436 women murdered per year.

gmalivuk wrote:In the US in 2015, 1,373,404 men and 1,339,226 women died, and 14,274 and 3,519 of those deaths were from murder, respectively. [Source]

The factor-of-two+ difference between those numbers means either the source data is different (but I don't think the murder rate changes that much year-to-year), or the math is wrong. Or I missed something else.

gmalivuk wrote:(Of course in both our cases those numbers aren't age-adjusted.)

Nor adjusted for anything else, like location: picking the least- and most-murderous states, New Hampshire's murder rate is about a tenth of Louisiana's, which is more significant than the "only" 4-to-1 (nationwide) difference between the sexes. (I'm pretty safe in Minnesota, too; we're 3rd best with 1.8/100K.)

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:08 pm UTC
by Sableagle
Possibly one figure is for homicide and the other for premeditated murder, or some such distinction.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:44 am UTC
by gmalivuk
No, it's just that murder rates by sex are evidently given the same way any death rates by sex (or race or age or whatever) are typically given: per 100k in that population, not per 100k total population.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 10:49 am UTC
by Sableagle
I would have expected that, but the page actually said "per 100,000 people" on it.

Maybe it was a bad label.

Sidenote from your source:

Code: Select all

All injury  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214,008 66.6 63.9
  Unintentional . . . . . . . . . . . . 146,571 45.6 43.2
  Suicide   . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  44,193 13.7 13.3
  Homicide  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17,793  5.5  5.7
Firearm     . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  36,252 11.3 11.1
  Unintentional . . . . . . . . . . . .     489  0.2  0.2
  Suicide   . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22,018  6.9  6.5
  Homicide  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12,979  4.0  4.2
Motor vehicle traffic . . . . . . . . .  36,161 11.3 10.9


Firearm suicides exceed total homicides.
Firearm and motor vehicle traffic deaths are about equal.
Total suicides exceed total firearm and total motor traffic deaths (separately).

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:39 am UTC
by JeffDG
ucim wrote:Every ten years there should be a census taken of all persons living in the United States. There should be one question: "Do you know this person?", applied to each and every other person in the country. The results would be tallied into a national notoriety score. The presidential succession chart would be made up of this list, in reverse order.

Ties to be determined by fistfight - the loser becomes president.

Jose


Better idea:

First, rank every person in the US from 1 - 300m or so on some kind of objective scale. Then start at the top. Ask each person "Do you want to be President?" If they say "Yes", they're disqualified. First person to say "HELL NO!" gets the job. Nobody who wants that kind of power should ever be trusted with it.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:50 pm UTC
by thunk
When we ultimately decide to skip directly to #13
Image

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2018 3:04 am UTC
by Aubri
Seriously, #7 is where I start nodding along. Have these guys never heard of "off-site backup"?

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:04 pm UTC
by chrisjwmartin
gmalivuk wrote:
chrisjwmartin wrote:
Sableagle wrote:Why isn't Malala Yousafzai on the list?

Because she's an over-rated dimwit pushed into an undeserved prominence by her cynical father?

Fuck off.

Yep, that is the quality of response I expect from the kind of person gullible enough to admire Malalalalalalalalol.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:09 pm UTC
by chrisjwmartin
JeffDG wrote:First, rank every person in the US from 1 - 300m or so on some kind of objective scale. Then start at the top. Ask each person "Do you want to be President?" If they say "Yes", they're disqualified. First person to say "HELL NO!" gets the job. Nobody who wants that kind of power should ever be trusted with it.

It's true, and everyone knows it from personal experience: it's also true of the kind of person who wants to be a forum moderator.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2018 6:28 pm UTC
by gmalivuk
Glancing a bit through your post history, I see that you have never contributed anything of value to this forum.

Bye!

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:21 am UTC
by gladiolas
Mikeski wrote:
Sableagle wrote:
teelo wrote:Should just jump straight to the jousting tournament, and make them all a fight to the death. Will solve all the worlds problems.

"Anyone who wants to rule the world should be knocked off a horse, hacked and battered with a war axe and decapitated," then?

I believe she said, "it would solve all the world's problems if every American (except 1, I guess) were brutally murdered."

Charming, no?

Who are you quoting?

And I get that Malala is an ordinary teenager aside from getting shot, but what makes her a "dimwit"? I hadn't been paying that much attention to her.

Another idea for the line of succession is any living person with the same last name as a previous President. I read that about 99.9 percent of people named Washington are African-Americans. I wonder what the percentage is for people named Lincoln, Jefferson or Franklin.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 3:25 am UTC
by da Doctah
gladiolas wrote:Another idea for the line of succession is any living person with the same last name as a previous President. I read that about 99.9 percent of people named Washington are African-Americans. I wonder what the percentage is for people named Lincoln, Jefferson or Franklin.


I assume you know Franklin, despite his being on the $100 bill and therefore a "dead President" in the most common sense, was never President.

Something like your suggestion came up early in the 2016 election when Hillary started making a serious showing. A random person on Usenet wondered if we were so het up about about having another Clinton in the White House, why didn't we nominate George Clinton? After all, he's totally cool and awesome, right?

I said there was a potential conflict of interest, because he's already a member of Parliament.

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:33 pm UTC
by Lothario O'Leary
da Doctah wrote:
gladiolas wrote:Another idea for the line of succession is any living person with the same last name as a previous President. I read that about 99.9 percent of people named Washington are African-Americans. I wonder what the percentage is for people named Lincoln, Jefferson or Franklin.


I assume you know Franklin, despite his being on the $100 bill and therefore a "dead President" in the most common sense, was never President.

Something like your suggestion came up early in the 2016 election when Hillary started making a serious showing. A random person on Usenet wondered if we were so het up about about having another Clinton in the White House, why didn't we nominate George Clinton? After all, he's totally cool and awesome, right?

I said there was a potential conflict of interest, because he's already a member of Parliament.

The real reason, of course, is that we already had a George Clinton in the White House - he was Madison's VP.

(By "Madison", of course, I mean James Madison and not Madison Baumgartner.)

There were, in fact, two dead presidents named Franklin (one of them also in the other sense), but for neither of them was it their last name. Sadly, to the best of my knowledge, none yet were named Hamilton (or indeed Sacagawea).

Re: 2003: "Presidential Succession"

Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:58 am UTC
by Krenn
herbstschweigen wrote:From a european perspective, I really wonder why the simple solution of just scheduling a new election seems completely unthinkable to you US guys? Your 4-year term seems really written in rock.



The founding constitution does write 4-year terms into rock, yes.

However, the biggest obstacle for why we've never gotten around to changing it is arguably the VICE-president.

there's roughly a 20% chance that any given Vice-President will at some point become President because the President managed to die before leaving office.

This is pretty much the ONLY reason that any sane person would ever agree to become Vice-President. It's a completely thankless, pointless, meaningless job, with virtually no power, no responsibility, no authority, no money, almost no face-time on TV, and near-zero perks.

The Vice-President is usually a consolation prize to the 40% or so of the President's Party who wanted someone else to be the Party's nominee for president. And the only reason it WORKS as a consolation prize is because there's a 20% chance that the president will die and the Veep will inherit.

The only other reason why the selection of a Vice-president running mate is important is because it shows how seriously the president takes the possibility that he might die, and who he considers an appropriate emergency successor. Again, that's only a useful measurement if the vice-president is guaranteed to serve out the remainder of the term.


Thus, if we ever changed the mandatory fixed 4-year term setting, the entire vice-presidential system would become meaningless and broken.