Tomorrow we will elect the next President of the United States. The
result will have great consequences for the nation.
This election offers a choice is between two men with dramatically
different visions of the future. We have strong feelings about this
choice. But we feel even more strongly that all Americans, regardless
of political preference, have a stake in the outcome and should vote
in this critical election.
This is likely to be a close election. Your vote matters. Please use
it and make a difference.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Thompson
On Nov 4, 6:24 am, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 4 Lis, 05:40, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > This is likely to be a close election. Your vote matters. Please use
> > it and make a difference.
>> I thought there are more than two candidates ....
Go ahead, throw your vote away! (ominous laughter)
Seriously, though, for players in the US, I couldn't agree with Jeff
more. Regardless of who you support, go out and vote. It's
important.
On Nov 4, 7:55 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:24 am, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 4 Lis, 05:40, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is likely to be a close election. Your vote matters. Please use
> > > it and make a difference.
>
> > I thought there are more than two candidates ....
>
> Go ahead, throw your vote away! (ominous laughter)
>
Surely in a democracy it's time for us to quit being sentimental, and
say the question we settle in an election is not whether elites shall
rule, but which elite shall rule. - George Will
It is true that a vote for a libertarian, green, or independent
candidate will not result in that candidate being elected this time.
It is also true that such votes build a small amount of support for
third parties. Strictly speaking, it is not throwing the vote away,
it is spending it in the hope of developing a viable alternative to
the two party system. It is up to each individual voter to determine
whether voting for a given candidate is "worth it" given their
circumstances. See also: the electoral college and living in a non-
swing state (hello Massachusetts!).
There are also a lot of important questions down ballot. There are
state, national, and local reps running in contested races, and
referendum questions, and your vote regarding those things matters a
lot. Even in a state like mine, a vote for one of the two major
candidates matters, it just doesn't matter much.
Get to your polling place.
-dc
On Nov 4, 9:58 am, dcloo...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is true that a vote for a libertarian, green, or independent
> candidate will not result in that candidate being elected this time.
> It is also true that such votes build a small amount of support for
> third parties.
Parties which receive 5% of the popular vote become eligible for
federal campaign funds in the next election.
--
David Cherryholmes
On Nov 4, 8:58 am, dcloo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:55 am, Chris Berger <ark...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 6:24 am, AcheronNightStal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On 4 Lis, 05:40, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is likely to be a close election. Your vote matters. Please use
> > > > it and make a difference.
>
> > > I thought there are more than two candidates ....
>
> > Go ahead, throw your vote away! (ominous laughter)
>
>> It is true that a vote for a libertarian, green, or independent
> candidate will not result in that candidate being elected this time.
> It is also true that such votes build a small amount of support for
> third parties. Strictly speaking, it is not throwing the vote away,
> it is spending it in the hope of developing a viable alternative to
> the two party system. It is up to each individual voter to determine
> whether voting for a given candidate is "worth it" given their
> circumstances. See also: the electoral college and living in a non-
> swing state (hello Massachusetts!).
>
I was joking, but you are absolutely right. If I had voted in the
2000 election, it would have certainly been for a 3rd party candidate,
not because I thought they would win, but because my vote really
doesn't matter in Illinois as far as electoral votes go, and I wasn't
particularly interested in seeing either guy win.
This year, I really truly believe in one of the two candidates and
wanted to show my support even in such a small way as 1 vote. I don't
really hate the other guy (would have voted for him in 2000 or 2004
given the chance), but I really believe in my Senator.
I would really like to see a 4 party system consisting of fiscal
conservatives, evangelical conservatives, personal freedoms liberals
and socialist-leaning liberals, or something like that. And if voting
for the Green or Constitution or Libertarian Party (or whatever other
candidate) helps to loosen the hold of the 2 party system without
facilitating in the election of a candidate that you find really
distasteful, then more power to you!
[ quoted text not captured ]
A very steep hurdle indeed. And while we're on the third party
subject, many states provide ballot access to any political party if
they achieve a certain threshhold of either registered voters or by
percentage of the popular vote for President in a given state.
If your state is not electorally in play, consider voting (or
registering!) third party.
Jeff
[ quoted text not captured ]
a vote for democritus is not necessarily a vote for democracy.
also
can we have a vamp like this:
Lipstick
5 cap, !Trem!, archbishop of juneau, pre thau
once per game, during a political action, Lipstick's controller may
burn 1 from their prey's pool to gain 3 votes.
Lipstick burns 1 blood during untap; if she can't she is burned. she
and you can play cards that require an infernal minion.
or this:
Dover Joe
6 cap, Ven, primogen, dem nec daim chi obt SANG
Dover Joe may play cards that require sanguinus as a !BBro! of any
circle, and he may be counted as a !BBro! of any circle by cards that
require sanguinus played by any minion. during an attempted political
action, action modifiers cost your other minions an additional blood.
the illin' noize in my pants was just an arid Zoner. happy e_ection
day, my fellow americans!
sporemage
bluedevil <david.che...@gmail.com> wrote:
> dcloo...@gmail.com wrote:>> It is true that a vote for a libertarian, green, or independent
>> candidate will not result in that candidate being elected this time.
>> It is also true that such votes build a small amount of support for
>> third parties.>
> Parties which receive 5% of the popular vote become eligible for
> federal campaign funds in the next election.
I believe it is 10% in two consecutive elections (according to the FEC
website).
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
On Nov 3, 11:40 pm, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is likely to be a close election. Your vote matters. Please use
> it and make a difference.
Strike: Vote Cast!
-Peter
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:40:52 -0500, The Lasombra <TheLa...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Tomorrow we will elect the next President of the United States. The
> result will have great consequences for the nation.
I'm not living in the US, so I hope my cynicism isn't offensive, but I
generally
don't beleive that changing the figurehead will be able to have a huge
impact
on the underlying corrupted system [*].
But then again, for everybody's sake, let's hope it will, and in a
positive way.
Decisions made by a strong country like the US can influence many other
nations.
[*] All human institutions tend to be corrupt, this is not anti-US
propaganda.
As we know, power corrupts.
--
Regards,
Daneel
On 6 Lis, 23:12, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:40:52 -0500, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com>[ quoted text not captured ]
And absolute power means absolute corruption ... but really, it isnt
place for such discussion.
It's freakin vtes group! There are surely other sites where You could
discuss this matter :)
On Nov 6, 5:12 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 23:40:52 -0500, The Lasombra <TheLasom...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow we will elect the next President of the United States. The
> > result will have great consequences for the nation.
>
> I'm not living in the US, so I hope my cynicism isn't offensive, but I
> generally
> don't beleive that changing the figurehead will be able to have a huge
> impact
> on the underlying corrupted system [*].
>
>> --
> Regards,
>
> Daneel
Wow. Offensiveness aside, your beliefs aren't the issue. The way
the United States government actually works is, and when there is a
change in the executive branch, things change.
You should do a bit more research on how the U.S. government works
before running your mouth about it on the list. Some things to start
with are "signing statements" and how they were used in the last 8
years, veto power, use of U.S. armed forces, attitudes towards
diplomacy, appointments to the Supreme Court and cabinet positions
such as Secretary of State, and the racial history of the United
States.
Wow. I am sorry to pursue this off topic discussion, but offensive
doesn't even begin to cover it.
-dc
On Nov 6, 7:18 pm, dcloo...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 6, 5:12 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote:> > I'm not living in the US, so I hope my cynicism isn't offensive, but I
> > generally
> > don't beleive that changing the figurehead will be able to have a huge
> > impact
> > on the underlying corrupted system [*].
>> > Regards,
>
> > Daneel
>
> Wow. Offensiveness aside, your beliefs aren't the issue. The way
> the United States government actually works is, and when there is a
> change in the executive branch, things change.
>
> You should do a bit more research on how the U.S. government works
> before running your mouth about it on the list. Some things to start
> with are "signing statements" and how they were used in the last 8
> years, veto power, use of U.S. armed forces, attitudes towards
> diplomacy, appointments to the Supreme Court and cabinet positions
> such as Secretary of State, and the racial history of the United
> States.
>
> Wow. I am sorry to pursue this off topic discussion, but offensive
> doesn't even begin to cover it.
I am a US citizen, and I agree almost 100% with Daneel's statement,
which I found neither ill-informed nor Anti-American, nor ignorant.
I understanding you are objecting to the characterization of the U.S.
President as a "figurehead", and to an extent, I agree with you. In a
relative sense, and compared to some other political leaders, the
powers of the U.S. President are quite substantial.
But it is not an issue of the specific powers of the U.S. President,
but an issue of the very nature of power. The United States
government is a vast vast institution, and the President is one man.
The President's vast powers are largely illusory, because if he bucks
the system, the system will chew him up and spit him out. Even if he
were a dictator, with absolute power, the principle would apply.
It's not that he cannot do good. He can do as much good as one good
man can do in a vast vast system that is far vaster than he is. I am
guessing, however, that the more actual good he does, the more he will
be perceived as a weak president. He can become a strong president
only by adapting himself to the needs of power, and that is where the
"power corrupts" principle enters the equation.
"All power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Great men are almost always bad men." -- Lord Acton
If we are lucky, our new president will not be a great president -- he
will merely be a good one.
[ quoted text not captured ]
The Commander in Chief of the entire United States military is a mere
figurehead?
How do you think we got where we are today without serious action and
serious consequences from those at the top?
If you want to claim that the President has little to do with changing
economic conditions, I'm with you there. People do tend to think the
President has more influence there than he really does.
But if you think the POTUS doesn't wield enormous individual power,
real and symbolic, you're sorely mistaken.
Jeff
On Nov 7, 3:00 pm, Jeff Kuta <jeff.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Commander in Chief of the entire United States military is a mere
> figurehead?
Did I say that? I thought I made clear that I did NOT consider him to
be a "mere figurehead".
> How do you think we got where we are today without serious action and
> serious consequences from those at the top?
I'm not sure what you mean by "serious action" or what you think the
issue is. Kings and Emperors come and go. They do what they do.
Most of what they do is wicked, and it does indeed have serious
consequences. And the World turns.
> If you want to claim that the President has little to do with changing
> economic conditions, I'm with you there.
I never claimed that. I expressed no opinion on that particular
point.
> People do tend to think the
> President has more influence there than he really does.> But if you think the POTUS doesn't wield enormous individual power,
> real and symbolic, you're sorely mistaken.
Either that, or the "Enormous Individual Power" wields him. Man does
not become Superman, merely because he is made King. He remains a
man, with two arms, two legs, and one voice. If the POTUS doesn't
mind being corrupted by his power, which to a large extent means he is
controlled by his power, then yes, he can indeed wield "Enormous
Individual Power". But if he insists on being a good man, he may find
that the "Enormous Individual Power" slips through his fingers, or,
more likely, that he never manages to gain "Enormous Individual Power"
in the first place.
Of course, the US is, in theory at least, a democracy. A popular
leader could, in theory, continue to be an effective leader and a
decent person, to the extent that his power really comes from the will
of the common folk, who tend to be less wicked than elites. But such
a decent, popular, effective POTUS would not think of himself as
someone who wields "enormous individual power". He would think of
himself as the humble servant of those who put him in office.
In message <8a3bcfa0-2faf-4d4d...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups
.com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes:
>Did I say that?
No-one cares.
If you want to argue over who said what about politics, please go to
another newsgroup.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> writes:
> In message <8a3bcfa0-2faf-4d4d...@s9g2000prm.googlegroups
> .com>, jwjbw...@gmail.com writes:
> >Did I say that?
>
> No-one cares.
>
> If you want to argue over who said what about politics, please go to
> another newsgroup.
Let's try to rescue this thread and bring it back on topic...
Is it just me, or does anyone else find the guy in the Smear Campaing card to
bear a striking resemblance to a certain president-elect...?
I think it's absolutely hilarious. Just like when my pals pointed out the
Bill Clinton lookalike in the new Temptation.
HG
[ quoted text not captured ]
I'm not sure whether the initial post was well-suited for this
forum to begin with. It tried to express an apolitical,
for-the-greater-good attitude, but it was everything but
apolitical, given the nature of the controversy (which I
helpfully pointed out).
--
Regards,
Daneel