Election-themed cards (Courtesy of Mightygodking.com)

[Darkenslight]

I was browsing the Internet for the US election, and cam across this:  http://mightygodking.com/index.php/2008/09/02/stab-at-relevance/. 

Thoughts about this?  I like it, as a strong attempt at offending (almost) everyone.  :p

[Matt]

I didn't really lol until I got to Giuliani. That was funny. More funny:

-Ron Paul also brought the lolz.
-Kucinich's picture was rofl

David Brooks was pretty appropriate, as was the DLC.

They could have done a better job with PUMA's mechanics.

I like the triple-hybrid symbols, that was a nice touch.

[andrewpate]

Giuliani was amusing, but I didn't lol until I got to Hillary being a flip creature.  Ron Paul was definitely the highlight, though (where's ELD right now?).

[ELD]

I liked the Ron Paul Supporters.  The fact that they are colorless is perfect.  The fact that they recruit others is great too.  The freedom message will continue to spread rapidly as long as we have the internet to work with.  I think they should have had the relentless rats ability though. 

I've been in shock all day to hear that the Federal Government has purchased Freddie and Fannie.  This is a bigger deal historically than if we had just disbanded the Congress and Senate.  Clearly, both political parties have no regard for the Constitution, and believe the government should be able to do anything it wants.  We're no meaningful choice between the "major" candidates.  At least the Rally for the Republic was a huge success, and it even got a little media coverage. 

[Matt]

The government owning Fannie Mae? Truly unprecedented!

[Anusien]

Why are everyone's created cards (especially joke cards), templated like crap?  It actively gets in the way of enjoyment for me.

[Matt]

[andrewpate]

I just realized that Obama is a 3/7, great at weathering attacks, while McCain is a 6/3, very attack-oriented.... and guess who wins in combat.  Definitely missed that before.

[ELD]

The government owning Fannie Mae? Truly unprecedented!

FDR was the worst fascist to ever hold the office of President.  Hitler himself had high praise of FDR, as an individual who moved beyond the law to do enforce his own will.  We are still trying to undo the extreme damage he did to our country and freedoms.  We have a long way to go.  Gold was illegal to own in our history, we have had military drafts, we committed the worst genocide in the history of the world.  The fact that something has happened in our history is absolutely in no way associated with it being acceptable.  This dangerous consolidation of power has happened at the worst time in history for it.  The government has access to more technology than ever before, and we have generations of people molded by a public education system to be dependent, unthinking sheeple. 

To preserve our Republic, we have some serious work cut out for ourselves.  Luckily, we still have the internet as a vehicle to exchange ideas and organize.  I honestly believe that with the internet, the government will not be able to stop this peaceful revolution from achieving it's goals.  In regards to the Magneto issue:

Ron Paul Fact #223:  All the stunt work for Magneto in the X movies was done by Ron Paul. 

This comment is taking this thread in a dangerous direction.  Politics are a sensitive subject to start, without invoking the name of Hitler.  I'm not going to push the issue too hard, but please exercise discretion and, if you're going to make statements like the one above, at least cite some reputable sources.  Let's not get politics banned as a discussion topic again.
Thank you,
Ephraim

[ErkBek]

Michelle Obama is broken. A definite 4-of in all blue, green, and/or white decks.

4 : Rudy Guiliiani becomes 9/11 until the end of the turn.

No question that's the funniest.

[ELD]

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=311

Didn't realize it wasn't common knowledge to people who studied history.  FDR was certainly more fascist and socialist than any president we've ever had.  It makes it very difficult to learn from the past if we are too sensitive to even talk about it empirically.  Hitler is the exact opposite of what I believe in, and I think it's important to see how things have transpired in the past.  I believe we have basically lost our republic.  We have a two party system in which both parties have the same agenda.  We essentially have corporate fascism.  Anyone who still believes that the people, and not the political parties and big business, control government would be very interesting to talk for me.  60% of Americans are not happy with either McCain or Obama, and the populace still 100% believes that one of them is going to get elected.  I can only hope we see "None of the Above" on the ballot some day.  It would allow people who are not happy with the system to get involved, and it would win sometimes. 

[Ephraim]

60% of Americans are not happy with either McCain or Obama, and the populace still 100% believes that one of them is going to get elected.  I can only hope we see "None of the Above" on the ballot some day.  It would allow people who are not happy with the system to get involved, and it would win sometimes. 

It's interesting that you should mention this.  I read a news article about Ron Paul earlier this week.  He is refusing to support McCain or Obama and is instead encouraging voters to support the Green or Libertarian party candidates.  I intend to write him a letter.  As a congressman, he is actually in a position to propose a Constitutional amendment to institute approval voting.  That would go a long way toward making 3rd party candidates viable, which would in turn force the two large parties to compete on real issues.

I appreciate the link, by the way.  It may well be common knowledge to people who studied history, but I have done so only passingly.  I agree that we should be able to discuss it empirically, but like I said, exercise discretion. (And no, I don't mean that as a euphemism for "be politically correct.")

[Anusien]

I can only hope we see "None of the Above" on the ballot some day.  It would allow people who are not happy with the system to get involved, and it would win sometimes. 

Don't we already have that with write-ins?  I've even seen third-party candidates on the ballot before (and they've swung elections).

And by the way, if you want to discuss this sort of thing rationally, using such emotionally charged language will only get in your way.  And this is probably not the thread for it.

P.S., if you want to start a grassroots movement over a candidate, choosing one with potential racist leanings in his background who was also the only candidate to vote against an anti-genetic discrimination bill is probably a mistake.

[andrewpate]

It's interesting that you should mention this.  I read a news article about Ron Paul earlier this week.  He is refusing to support McCain or Obama and is instead encouraging voters to support the Green or Libertarian party candidates.  I intend to write him a letter.  As a congressman, he is actually in a position to propose a Constitutional amendment to institute approval voting.  That would go a long way toward making 3rd party candidates viable, which would in turn force the two large parties to compete on real issues.

Actually, the presence of two behemoth parties is not the result of any minutae in the system.  It's actually the result of a large-scale phenomenon called Duverger's Law.  As a professional voter behavior analyst, I can actually tell you that this is what most researchers consider to be the ONLY ironclad law of political science whatsoever.  Essentially, it states that any system with a simple majority, single-member district elections system (such as the U.S.) will always have exactly two parties.  This can actually be proven as the payoff-dominant equilibrium for all politicians using game theory (actually, there is a very unstable 3-party equilibrium possible, but it can't really obtain in real life).  To get rid of this, you would need to amend the Constitution to proportional representation, where 3% of the national vote going to the Green Party will get them 3 Senators.  Some countries do this and have stable poly-party systems.

I would suggest the work of Peter Mair, as well.  He convincingly argues that all parties will eventually become the largely issue-independent "brand name" giants that we see in Reps and Dems as a part of a natural evolution of resource allocation and public image.  He calls these cartel parties.  They tend to "freeze" and not move even in the case of very large system shocks, such a populist 3rd party guy getting a lot of votes.

All of this is easy to read summarized if you Google it.  Very interesting stuff.

[ELD]

Don't we already have that with write-ins?  I've even seen third-party candidates on the ballot before (and they've swung elections).

Write in Ballots are not even counted - they are considered incorrectly marked.  So in that regard, there is absolutely no similarity.  You might as well stay home instead of doing a write in.  I would like to see "none of the above" or a vote of no confidence on all ballots, state, local, federal, moose lodge, it doesn't matter.  People have been tricked into voting for the "lesser of two evils" for far too long.  When you vote for the "lesser of two evils" you're still voting for evil. 

The 3rd party run of Perot was significant, but it was more about him than a movement.  To that end, it will be a footnote in history.  The movement that Ron Paul is helping to lead is about awakening the silent majority, shedding their apathy, and reclaiming our government from the political parties and big business.  We need a government restrained by the constitution, not a government restricting our rights and freedoms. 

And by the way, if you want to discuss this sort of thing rationally, using such emotionally charged language will only get in your way.  And this is probably not the thread for it.

I honestly cannot see how my post was "emotionally charged."  I was simply illustrating how fascism leads to unacceptable results to a free society, and how we have had fascist leaders and policies in the past.  We in fact, have been moving back towards these policies.  The illegal purchase of Freddie and Fannie with tax payer dollars is a perfect example of this.  I'm not saying FDR had high praise of Hitler - to my knowledge he did not.  I was pointing out that FDR's tactics were overstepped his legal authority, were disastrous for our country, and we need to move away from them instead of devolving back into them. 

I have no idea how to talk to someone who cannot talk about Hitler without it being emotionally charged.  I do not approve of many world leaders, but that doesn't mean I can't talk about them like an adult.  Jackson, for example, had some policies that I totally agreed with, and others that I feel he should have been hung for.  The genocide of the Native Americans that took place under his command puts him in the same place as Hitler for me.  To be unable to discuss that time period in history would eliminate one's ability to even grasp our history as a whole, to see how things are woven together, to see where we've been and where we're headed. 

P.S., if you want to start a grassroots movement over a candidate, choosing one with potential racist leanings in his background who was also the only candidate to vote against an anti-genetic discrimination bill is probably a mistake.

Ron Paul's message has absolutely no racist leanings.  It has unified people of all backgrounds, colors, religions, and any other box that the establishment would like to put us into.  The message of freedom and personal responsibility appeals to everyone who believes in what this country was founded on.  Take a look at the Rally for the Republic, and see what it looks like to be a true patriot.  In our country, we've been conditioned to believe that backing the current government is being a patriot.  The true patriot is the one who stands up for what this country was founded on, even when it's not the popular thing to do. 

Ron Paul votes against every and any bill that is not authorized by the Constitution.  If they put forward a bill to have a federal ban on killing babies with chainsaws, he would vote against it.  This is because it is not the role of the federal government.  Violent crimes, in this example, are up to the individual states to address.  He has voted against Congress giving medals to people he considers personal heroes, because it's not authorized.  He even walked the isles of Congress, suggesting that they each put in $100 to pay for the medals instead of putting a gun to the taxpayers heads to pay for it. 

While I was egged on to get into this thread :p, I do not feel a deep discussion on that matter works with the intention of the original post.  If this discussion is to continue, feel free to start another thread, and PM me about it.  I'd be happy to contribute.  (It might take an entire new board to have an intelligent coherent dialogue)

[Elric]

Actually, the presence of two behemoth parties is not the result of any minutae in the system.  It's actually the result of a large-scale phenomenon called Duverger's Law.  As a professional voter behavior analyst, I can actually tell you that this is what most researchers consider to be the ONLY ironclad law of political science whatsoever.  Essentially, it states that any system with a simple majority, single-member district elections system (such as the U.S.) will always have exactly two parties.  This can actually be proven as the payoff-dominant equilibrium for all politicians using game theory (actually, there is a very unstable 3-party equilibrium possible, but it can't really obtain in real life).  To get rid of this, you would need to amend the Constitution to proportional representation, where 3% of the national vote going to the Green Party will get them 3 Senators.  Some countries do this and have stable poly-party systems.

The game theoretic result here only suggests that in an individual district with plurality rule, single-member elections, in equilibrium, only two candidates should receive votes.  The argument for this is fairly intuitive- in these "pivotal vote" models, you should only vote your preference between the two leading parties.  However, there's no game theoretic reason why a country should only have two political parties as a result of single member districts- I believe India and Canada are exceptions here (i.e., multiple regional parties is fully consistent with the earlier result).

Approval voting, if I remember correctly, does cut down on the number of results that can be obtained as equilibria in a [Nobel prize winner Roger] Myerson-Weber framework.  So to the extent that prior expectations of winning parties cut against voting for third parties, approval voting could help them out (though I doubt approval voting would be enough to lead to a significant third party presence in Congress, for example).  I believe there's nothing that requires congressional elections in the US to be one vote, plurality rule single-member districts- how elections occur could be changed at the state level.

ELD, I believe that Anusien was referring to Ron Paul's newsletters, discussed by Reason here and the original article and newsletter excerpts in the New Republic, here

[The Atog Lord]

Gents, this discussion is not at all related to creating magic cards. It really has no place in the card creation forum. I know that the issues are exciting and important, but this is just not the place. Thread Locked.

[Matt]

deleted by moderation request