Jump to content

imsys0042

Established Member
  • Content Count

    970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by imsys0042

  1. My former home course had this. They had: Gold (back) Blue (longer men's tees) White (shorter men's tees) Silver (Senior) And then: Gold / Blue Blue / White White / Silver Each of those combos would take what was considered to be the 9 easier holes of the 18 and put them at the back tees so that it was graduated in difficulty. Also, it was a great way to play if you were a shorter hitter because you still added/deleted some length but the course wasn't completely different for you.
  2. I was mulling this over since this morning and here's what I think. David is correct that the primary has the most impact because veering towards one candidate as an alternative vs. another is the most effective way to get a better candidate. Or at least the one you want. However for effective third parties to rise, you need to have them outside the political parties that exist. They either need to get on the ballot as a member of one of the two parties or run a primary of their own and be on the ballet next to the existing 2. What third parties have tried to do is get 5% of the popular vote in the general to get access to a lot of matching federal funds. So their impact is best achieved at the general election level. Since Perot I don't think we've seen anyone get near 5%. Nader was under 3%. Nader probably swung Florida to Bush, so that's a direct impact. Perot got 19% and potentially knocked Bush out. So there is a measurable impact in a tighter election (I consider Perot an outlier). Voting for a third-party candidate is probably a net "the same as not voting" in this election because I suspect it's such a wonky year that third parties will drain from both. 2000 is an example where there was a direct impact. Over 2000 people voted for Nader and Gore lost by 537 (officially). Those 2000 people were motivated enough to vote for someone who wasn't going to win. If a majority of them go and pull the lever for Gore, the election goes the other way (demographics strongly supported Nader voters leaning to Gore). However what we don't know (and makes this speculation) is how many of them would have been motivated to show up for Gore and would that been enough? David's statement only holds true if those voters would have not pulled the lever for someone else. Or in other words they only thing that motivated them was voting for the third party. It doesn't take into account a voter who is going to vote no matter what, and if the two main parties are on the ballot then that is who they have to choose from. Where David is correct (IMO) is that it's not a vote for one of the people who have a shot at winning.
  3. And we need more people to go out and vote in the primaries!!!
  4. Doh! Actually the Simpsons quote I was referring to was the Halloween special where the aliens Kang and Kodos ran for office, replacing Bob Dole and Bill Clinton. The quote was: Oh, no! Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies! Oh my God! Lyndon LaRouche was right! And this page has a lot of goodies from it: http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_VII/Quotes
  5. That's true for the outcome of the election, however there is a wider implication. By pulling enough votes away from the 2 main candidates it can set the stage for other political parties to emerge and greater influence the 2 party system. The US has never effectively had to deal with coalition governing, however as the parties are moving to their more extreme endpoints (policy wise), it leaves a lot of people in the middle outside of many policy points. Consider the Tea Party. They identify as Republicans, however they zero in on a subset of issues within the party platform. If they decided to switch to "I" for independent tomorrow, that affects the balance of power in the House. Or just as Independents in the Senate will caucus with the Democrats, but are not labeled as such and could not affiliate with neither party. It would be extremely difficult, but if over 2-4 general election cycles a small, but if significant number of a third party candidates won seats in Congress you would have a position where one of the 2 parties would have to compromise with them to govern. What makes the Presidency attractive to promote these parties is that it is the highest visibility contest to get supporters.
  6. Yes! One of the oddest people in the public eye in the 20th century. Great punch line in the Simpsons
  7. 94% Hillary Clinton 80% Jill Stein 36% Gary Johnson 29 %Donald Trump Little surprising to me that I ended up at 94%, however I weighted nothing so they all had the weight. I found myself doing quite a number of the Other Stances which seem to clarify things more. However it all has to be taken with a grain of salt, there are some things that the public does not know that affects these decisions. Also some of these the stance I want to take are next to impossible to implement. I would prefer an international response on a couple of the Foreign Policy questions, but in fact that would probably never happen in reality. Sometimes bad choices are the only choices you have.
  8. The biggest, most beautiful nukes ever created!! No one will have bigger nukes than me! Everyone says it!
  9. I'm not sure it's worth anyone except Google to purchase it. Google Plus was a great social network for the 23 people who signed up for it, so Google could use some help there. Twitter does have a horrible trolling problem and too many people jump on band wagons to harass people. Now it is a unique service and can be used very effectively. I don't use it that much, but it's possible to do some really good things with it. But to me it's the least of the social networks.
  10. interesting analysis on fivethirtyeight.com about the impact of debates on polling and the eventual winner. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-may-have-more-to-gain-from-the-first-debate-than-clinton/ Debates are usually interesting because so much pressure is on the candidates to not screw up.
  11. My wife and I have made up our minds who we are voting for. However we've been following what is an extremely unconventional election. Hilary Clinton should be as she usually is and no major surprises from her, I'd expect. However which Trump will show up? Will it be the brash Trump who steamrolled the primaries, or the "more presidential" version of Trump? It should be interesting to watch....
  12. Ha! Ha! I'd say we both like something not too strong, but not weak either. When I am not home in the morning it's easier to put in a K-Cup instead of brewing a small pot. I've only done it a couple of times, but isn't it just popping it in and then making sure a cup is underneath?
  13. My wife has one and she loves it. We brew DD on the weekends in a regular coffee pot. She gets different coffees in the Kuerig and says it's pretty good.
  14. This is a pretty accurate statement, sadly. On both sides what the candidates promise will never make it through Congress, or has to be so back pedaled to pass. There are plenty of politicians who outright lie, and many who make promises they know they cannot keep and do it to win votes. As voters we need to consider what reality is, not whether someone tells us something we want to hear.
  15. Based on the title of the article I don't put a lot of faith into these predictions unless the author has also used his future seeing powers to make billions in the stock market and predict both major world and sports events.
  16. There is a course on the Ohio/PA border that for years would be a once per year trip and it would humble all of us. It's hard to place exactly why, it's not overly difficult. Little tight in some places, but it messed with anyone who went that I know. My home course, soon to be my ex-home course, is like that. It's 145 slope and it has illegal drop areas and hazards for pace of play and to make it play easier. Very few people actually like it. Our handicaps travel very well from it.
  17. Yes, we actually don't know. And the reason the story came up is because he is running for President. But my argument is actually that it would be in character for the image that he likes to project to say "Hey, that wasn't right and off course I threw my money around to fix it". Much like any of us give to charity you have to consider the situation and whether it's the right thing to do, etc. No one can walk around throwing money at people because they happen to be poorer or worse off. Note: I don't think legally Trump has/had to pay. I just think given the situation he should have ponied up. Or ponied up part of it and said "I think that's fair".
  18. It's a perception thing. He lives large so part of his overall image would be to swoop in and pay the guy. I wouldn't consider it a general rule. But if I was running a tournament and I was in a position to correct a bad situation I would try. Donald Trump tells a lot of stories how he helped people with money or rewarded them over and above. There is a famous story he's "confirmed" about how he paid off the mortgage on a guy's house who helped him with a flat tire on his limo. So I think it's in character. On the flip side there are famous people who are reputed to be cheap and the expectation would be that they wouldn't do such a thing.
  19. I'm sure based on the prize there are different requirements from the insurance company. There were two hole-in-one prizes at a recent tourney at my place and one was unattended and the other had someone who worked for the course. They weren't high value prizes. Where I caddied as a kid there was always 1-2 women who watched the hole that had a car during an outing. I don't know who they worked for. A car is much less than $1M. A huge prize might require an onsite insurance person. Otherwise the organizer and the insurance company can agree who is trustworthy to monitor. Insurance companies might even have resources in many regions that they can sub-contract to and pay them to watch. My home course awards a vacation package to anyone who makes a hole-in-one. However there must be two witnesses, the theory that you'd have to have three people holding up the lie. I made both of my hole-in-ones there playing by myself, although my partner dropped out after 9 due to NFL week 1.
  20. My original take is that he should have paid and several responses after that hasn't changed my mind. Not because it's anything political, but because this is Donald Trump who has made a name for himself living large and using his wealth to do lavish things. Someone like that should pay up if there is this kind of mistake and take the publicity for doing so. Same thing if this was an event hosted by Warren Buffet. Now considering how the insurance arrangements are done, a sponsor or golf course that cannot afford if the insurance bails obviously cannot pay out and it sucks, but someone goofed.
  21. You learn where to miss on your home course. Golfers who are thinking ahead and looking at the layout of a hole, or green, do this on any course. But local knowledge goes a long way to helping you avoid trouble.
  22. For a man worth 10 BILLION DOLLARS, it should be a no-brainer to pay up. If the article is accurate then it's a complete sham to have the stipulation that it's 150 yards and then have the hole set up less than that. Something similar happened a couple of years ago in a local tourney and I was playing with the sponsor. They set the Hole-in-One hole up at a certain distance and he wanted it further back because there were different tiers for the hole-in-one insurance based on distance. He wanted it back so he got charged less. My guess is that Trump's tourney didn't have hole-in-one insurance then? hole-in-one insurance is a small fee compared to the prize that the insurance company will pay out.
  23. Years ago someone in front of me dropped several balls on a tee box and just started hitting into a slow group in front of him. He was good enough to land them near the next group, unfortunately his golfing ability far outstripped his human decency.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...