Abraham spalding's page

As they said on NPR: Trump had an incredibly

low bar and he couldn't even reach that.

See this is just what a master Trump is; he sets the bar low, then he walks under it and claims to be the winner of the limbo contest, those other losers just kept going over it! Can you believe how foolish they must feel?

HOOORK!!! HOOOORRRRkkkK! HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHOORK! Ugh must be food poisoning...

Honestly for a very long time I was a believer in the "thin blue line" and as a concept I still believe it has merit and value.

However as a concept compared to the modern practice I have several worries in how it is being executed.

I pointed out before and I will again how it seems just having a weapon and being black is grounds for police to treat you as a hostile force. I do not see how the NRA can abide by that at all if they are honest in their mission.

We have people that will state as their sincerely held belief that merely disobeying a police officer is grounds for summary execution. This is not an exaggeration; the idea that a police officer is allowed to use lethal force in order to illicit compliance with his orders is giving him carte blanche to perform summary executions to those who offend him by not complying.

The fact that we as a society seem comfortable with the idea that someone can be arrested only for resisting arrest is unfathomable to me.

I cannot be punished in the military simply for existing. I cannot be ordered to confinement and restricted rations simply as a course of action.

I must confess it worries me that behavior that is unacceptable in a war zone seems to be acceptable for the defenders of the public.

I REALLY need to prove that there are a multitude of regulatory b@&!*%%% around, thejeff? Really?

Honestly I'm with Jeff on this one. Usually what people mean when they claim "bad regulation" is "I can't pollute and waste people as I want to make me more money"

basically it's always "bad regulation" until it protects the one complaining and then it's "common sense measures that are needed."

Oh, there's been all kinds of allegations of mistreatment at Gitmo.

Google search "Guantanamo" and "torture" and you'll find some articles.

Just so you know I'm not avoiding an unpleasantness; I accept that allegations have been raised and it is my hope and desire that the truth of these allegations is established and any wrongdoing is appropriately punished.

I didn't say their behavior once they detained her was proper.

I just see a lot of questions centered around, "What right did they have to detain her in the first place?"

I'd like to move past that, because exactly as both of you (Caineach and Abraham Spalding) just said, their behavior AFTER they decided to detain her is what merits discussion (and, IMO, condemnation).

Well I think the discussion certainly has room for questioning why the police felt she had to be detained as that certainly colors all further conversation about expectations from the police. This merely confirms if they were in the wrong from the start or not.

Added to this the fact that their stated cause fails in that their actions after that point do not meet the requirements placed upon them by that cause means their motives are suspect as well.

As such while their initial reasoning was sound the fact they failed to follow up on the obligations they saw for themselves followed by their actions against the person in question leads me to conclude not only did they do wrong by her but they also were negligent in their duty as well.

One or the other would be bad enough, but combined their treatment of the girl is well beyond the limits of what is acceptable.

So I guess I should have said:

A requirement to detain is not the question for me, its the activities taken after they had her in the car and the fact they failed in their stated duties towards the girl. The pepper spraying after the door was closed, and then failing in a duty they placed upon themselves willingly, is beyond the pale of what anyone could call acceptable

A requirement to detain is not the question for me, its the activities taken after they had her in the car. The pepper spraying after the door was closed was beyond the pale of what anyone could call acceptable.

She wasn't even particularly combative.

Guantanamo springs to mind as just the most famous example, but not the only one, that being recognized as an enemy soldier indeed brings you privileges in war times

And some people will go to great lengths to avoid letting their opponents receive this status and the privileges that go with it

In peace time, apparently many things go and only your lawyer's wages might help you :-(

I think you meant Abu Ghraib as to prove that bad things can happen to those in custody, as far as I know there has not be mistreatment of people in Guantanamo (if the people there belong in custody is a separate issue I have no intentions of discussing at all).

I do not dispute that bad things have happened to people in custody but typically those that do the bad things do become recognized and prosecuted. I know that is cold comfort to their victims but beyond training, attempting prevention and punishment for those that do infringe I do not know what else the military can do.

I believe that those same steps could handle the situation in the USA as well but that would require the police to punish those that do overstep and to take actions to prevent oversteps instead of finding reasons to justify them.

As such I don't think the current culture will allow the transition that needs to happen at this time.

The Raven Black wrote:

I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared

Again, I point to a portion of the civilian populace who are for the most part UNARMED and have to worry about being murdered for no reason by the police. And a lack of empathy by the general population at large

for the murdered persons because of perceived affiliation with criminality because of skin color.

Police may be stressed, tense and scared, but they are also armed and protected by not only each other but by general public opinion that they are justified in killing whoever they want as long as they are of a certain skin color.

What I keep wondering is where all the 2nd amendment people are each time a police officer states, "the perpetrator was armed." as if that was an excuse for an execution.

Supposedly being armed in the USA is not a crime, and yet we keep hearing how that one fact somehow changes everything and makes shooting the person okay.

In Afghanistan everyone is armed (slight exaggeration) with full automatic weaponry, and yet that is not an excuse for Soldiers to go around shooting anyone that looks at them wrong. I don't see how it's an excuse for police officers.

I have the feeling that police officers in the States are incredibly stressed, tense and even scared

Which is really awkward since we know this has been the safest time to be an officer in the USA in history. But your thoughts on the subject could be correct, a person's fears are rarely tied to a substantial threat to their persons.

Mixing that with weapons and authority / power never ends well

Understandable

Is my feeling substantiated ?

Feelings are weird in that they are not facts except as known to the person sharing them, so your feelings (that is to stay thoughts) on what another feels is hard to substantiate or dismiss

Is it time for Robocop yet ? (Pitiful attempt at levity)

I don't think it's that bad yet.

If I was in a warzone, in a firefight and my squad captured enemy combatants and after we had them secured I chose to then use attack the detainees, I would have committed a war crime in violation of the Geneva Conventions and should be brought up on charges, stripped of rank and sent to serve time in a military jail.

Realize that detainees are generally belligerent and have a recognized right and duty to attempt escape. In fact while the military force is expected to work diligently in retaining prisoners they are not supposed to punish those that attempt escape for the attempt in and of itself (the detaining force may however increase security measures so as to prevent escape).

The fact that an authority having gained control of the situation where someone (regardless of status of being a minor) who was already injured in a peaceful country and then the authority figure pepper sprays the injured and detained person angers and disgusts me.

The fact that someone would argue that what is not acceptable in a warzone with belligerent detainees is somehow acceptable in a peaceful environment with civilians for the sole purpose of not being cooperative when the person was injured in an accident, is appalling, and blows my mind.

Please note this is not questioning the detaining of the individual itself, merely the actions taken from there.

A 1.5-year necro of a 2-year necro of a 2-post thread that was answered and buried on the 2nd post. Impressive. :)

New class of monster: Unundead, or I would suggest, unliving.

A barbarian can call upon inner reserves of strength and ferocity, granting her additional combat prowess. Starting at 1st level, a barbarian can rage for a number of rounds per day equal to 4 + her Constitution modifier. At each level after 1st, she can rage for 2 additional rounds. Temporary increases to Constitution, such as those gained from rage and spells like bear's endurance, do not increase the total number of rounds that a barbarian can rage per day. A barbarian can enter rage as a free action. The total number of rounds of rage per day is renewed after resting for 8 hours, although these hours do not need to be consecutive.
While in rage, a barbarian gains a +4 morale bonus to her Strength and Constitution, as well as a +2 morale bonus on Will saves. In addition, she takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase to Constitution grants the barbarian 2 hit points per Hit Dice, but these disappear when the rage ends and are not lost first like temporary hit points. While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration.
A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage. A barbarian cannot enter a new rage while fatigued or exhausted but can otherwise enter rage multiple times during a single encounter or combat. If a barbarian falls unconscious, her rage immediately ends, placing her in peril of death.

For the purposes of effects targeting creatures by type (such as a ranger's favored enemy and bane weapons), androids count as both humanoids and constructs. Androids gain a +4 racial bonus on all saving throws against mind-affecting effects, paralysis, poison, and stun effects, are not subject to fatigue or exhaustion, and are immune to disease and sleep effects. Androids can never gain morale bonuses, and are immune to fear effects and all emotion-based effects...

I think I said all that needs to be said (that being there is little benefit from raging for an android) but with that yes an android can rage, it's just a penalty for them to do so (-2 penalty to AC no bonuses). However yes you will have the use of your rage powers, so I guess that's something.

Lets do ourselves a favor:

If you suggest spending cuts list out where you think those cuts should come from. If not specific programs then at minimum the departments you think can take the cuts (break it out more if you want, for example military hardware as opposed to military pay and training if you like).

Simply calling for "cuts" by itself is basically useless.

Beyond this profits are actually the primary cause of inflation.

Irontruth wrote:

Can Christian bakers refuse to bake cakes for interracial weddings?

Can homosexual bakers refuse to bake cakes for Christian weddings?

** spoiler omitted **

They could... IF they refuse to bake any wedding cakes at all. At which point they don't provide the service to anyone and therefore no one could claim they are being denied due to considerations base on religion.

But that is a deceptive answer because the question presupposes that the homosexual bakers would not refuse a non-Christian.

And as a leftist I take some umbrage at the accusation that I "bash Christians", those that follow the teachings of Jesus Have my utmost respect. Those that try to claim a title without following the teacher get my contempt.

Again, it is the acts I judge. If you claim a faith and don't live up to the tenets then I don't owe you respect for the faith you claim.

Craig Bonham 141 wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

There's a very strong undercurrent in American culture that "rights" only apply to "people like us." (I usualliy see this as an article of faith among the Right, but there may well be a group of Leftists that feels that way, too. I don't know.)

There is. Freedom of speech only seemas to apply to those who agree with the regressive left. Talk smack about the evils of Christianity, conservatism, misogyny, etc, and you're A-Ok. Start to argue against any allowed leftist talking points and you're a horrible person who should be forced to shut up.

That's slightly different, as the courts have recognized. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you either a soapbox or an audience, nor does it guarantee you freedom from consequences for your speech.

Similarly, freedom of the press only applies to people who actually have presses of their own; you can't force the New York Times (or even Paizo) to publish something that they don't want to.

insert xkcd "here's the door" comic here

this should be entertaining.

All I can say is if I acted like that in warzone I would be spending many years in Leavenworth and rightly so.

Yet with police deaths and crime in general at an aall time low somehow police are under seige and responding as if everyone owes them obedience and their first duty is to come home alive.

It is personally offensive to me on a professional level.

To comment quickly on the military post: I make no excuses for how people have been treated in the past. Many groups have served with distinction that was not recognized (at a minimum formally) for far too long.

However the military is downsizing now. The military is removing people for every reason it can find.

So to deliver the charge that it's just a way to get more bodies into the 'war machine' is grossly unfair, inaccurate, and untrue.

To be brutually honest It would be easier to not address this issue at this time. That would keep those that attack any progress off the military's back, and allow a convenient (if wrong) reason to remove people or prevent them from joining in the first place

Wow! Wish I could keep up. Crazy posting.

I know I miss half a day and then see I missed some 30 posts... I limit myself to about 5 posts a day in here just so I don't get too tied up in it.

Abraham spalding wrote:

The other question to ask is what are those taxes getting you?

It's not really a useful question because you can't opt out of taxes.

It's still a useful question because you can lobby for where taxes are spent.

I mean yeah you generally have to pay (at least at our level in the society pool) but that doesn't mean you can't push for better efficiency, or for different priorities. I would point out that's exactly what republicans are doing when they frame issues as "not having enough to pay all these entitlements!" and whatnot.

Democrats do it back by pointing out efficiencies and how small such programs are as a percentage of the total budget or how social security is self paying and we should stop borrowing from it.

and so on and so forth.

Of course before you should do any of that you have to know what the taxes are going to and how it's developing.

For example businesses profit enormously from the transportation department and typically under contribute to the funds that provide for the infrastructure they are so heavily reliant on.

On the other hand there are other areas they represent more of the contributions than they perhaps should be.

Turin the Mad wrote:

45% is federal + Social Security + Medicaid + State + County after deductions as a self-employed small business owner. I do live in an expensive area, which results in the bracket unless I have a very bad year. Tack on sales taxes, property taxes, the gaggle of taxes buried in the utility bills, it adds up fast.

Ok, and are republicans talking about lowering any of THOSE taxes, or when they say "lower taxes" do they mean the income tax and capital gains taxes?

When they lower the income taxes and capital gains taxes, they give less money to the states, and then the states have to raise your list even higher to make up for the shortfall.

You don't have a party to vote for for lowering taxes on actual people.

The other question to ask is what are those taxes getting you? After all taxes should be seen as an investment in the society you are in. If it is providing for societal needs and what have you it can end up paying very well.

Not that this always the case of course.

What is/are the root/s of this "cis"? And why do i not recall seeing it before?

EDIT: ninja'd above. I saw it, CBD. Thanks!

Cis means "on the side of"

So you are "on the side of" your gender instead of "trans" or "across of, or beyond" gender.

Just started playing this on the Xbox One and I have found the settlement building to be very interesting. I was wondering a few things though.

Is it possible to disable object snapping?

Not specifically but enough fiddling can cause things to work

When multiple pieces are put together, mainly using snapping to make a large floor with walls, is it possible to move all of the pieces together?

Yes simply target a piece and then hold the selection button down until everything it is attached to highlights then you can move the entirety of the building/structure

I have a feeling what I want is easily done with mods, but I figured experienced people on the forum would know.

No guarantees, the mods range from great to very sloppy to failing all the way to game breaking.

IF you get a game breaking mod (meaning the game won't load at all) simply go to the betheseda website and delete the mod from your account and library there. Once you do that your next load on the Xbox1 should be clean. If that doesn't work simply go to the website and keep removing and disabling mods until it does. Your old save maybe corrupted beyond redemption though. No hope for that unfortunately.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Abraham --

Indeed. The point was not to initiate that particular discussion, but to point to a different experience in interacting with Trump supporters than Scott's. I simply wanted to offer as complete a context as i could, even with its inherent limitations.

Yeah that's all that can be done. Context is important. For example I train regularly on being able to kill people.

Without the context that I'm in the military that statement looks really bizarre and worrisome.

Occasionally I'll make the statement that everyone is pro-gun control. Someone will inevitably state that they are not pro-gun control. Then I'll ask why they favor allowing serial murders, rapist and child molesters access to firearms. They'll state they are not and how dare I suggest they are? Reply, "Congratulations you just advocated for gun control."

It's always a matter of degrees and extremes.

Sounds like being a jerk.

It's a common debate tactic and what's more I owe you no explanations or apologies. If you would like to contribute then I might do so anyways but I won't wait around for it.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Turin the Mad wrote:

I love the ideas but how is everything supposed to be paid for? Taxes are onerous enough as it is as a small business owner. As a small business owner, it would be delightful to see the proposed reductions of red tape but most importantly the 'tax relief and simplification'. What I have yet to find is the proposed methods. Tax credits aren't worth very much. Tax reduction to employee levels would free up a great deal of gross profit to be further invested in taking advantage of...

Well we could start killing some of the subsidies for corporations. By many estimates that would account for 100 billion dollars a year allowing for one year's worth paying for the entirety of the 80 billion dollar plan President Obama put forth for free college. We would then have enough the next year to pay for a complete renovation of our national parks.

Or perhaps we could reduce some military hardware spending.

We could of course simply raise taxes too. It's insane to me that we somehow have sold that taxes are so "hard" when in actuality the final tax rate for many businesses is lower than it has been in for around half a century.

I think there is room for some adjustments and reductions in the difficulty in the tax code... but that would mean that we would have to admit some ugly truths about our government, tax system, mores, and society as a whole that I honestly don't think our nation is ready to view.

By the way that's direct subsidies, not special tax loops which account for around another 100 billion a year. We could hit those instead and leave the subsidies in place.

The tax burden is nasty in this area if you're doing well enough to hit the regional median income. 45% not counting for full price health care premiums and regional cost of living gobbles up nearly all of the rest. Tack on the other day-to-day taxes and I'll be genuinely surprised if the total amount of taxes shelled out-of-pocket don't hit at least...

Well it sounds like you are likely including state and local taxes, which are generally used to subsidize carving out tax exemptions for large corporations. However healthcare costs are currently not a tax (many things to be said about holding health as extortion but that's a different discussion).

Also not knowing your region or regional median income or cost of living or the marginal cost of living for that area I can't actually say anything more meaningful than that.

Abraham --

Indeed. The point was not to initiate that particular discussion, but to point to a different experience in interacting with Trump supporters than Scott's. I simply wanted to offer as complete a context as i could, even with its inherent limitations.

Yeah that's all that can be done. Context is important. For example I train regularly on being able to kill people.

Without the context that I'm in the military that statement looks really bizarre and worrisome.

Occasionally I'll make the statement that everyone is pro-gun control. Someone will inevitably state that they are not pro-gun control. Then I'll ask why they favor allowing serial murders, rapist and child molesters access to firearms. They'll state they are not and how dare I suggest they are? Reply, "Congratulations you just advocated for gun control."

It's always a matter of degrees and extremes.

From what I have been able to glean from various conversations, there is a great deal of upset in the wake of the homosexual marriage ruling. In some cases, this "backlash" is tied directly to held moral convictions of what marriage should be (religiously informed) in their minds. In some cases it comes down to semantics: the "appropriation" of the term "marriage", as they see it, to include something that has traditionally fallen outside the bounds of the term (a subtle distinction, but one that exists). Overall, there is a narrow majority in my "sample group" that is not opposed to homosexual (or other sexuality/gender identities) couples being able to enjoy the same legal (esp. financial) benefits before the law as heterosexual married couples. Whether motivated solely by moral convictions or by a...

See I've flipped this on many conservatives. I've pointed out that my religion requires that we allow those in love be married and asked should my or their religion take precedence over the other.

Then I point out that if we were to eliminate marriage as a government institution as a whole and instead had everyone get legalized partnership contracts only then that would mean marriage would be whole defined by the churches.

What my church states a marriage is would have no bearing on what their church states a marriage is. Everyone could literally use their own definition and be correct. What they would not get to define are the terms and conditions of the partnership contract.

The only arguments I've received back from that is what I call "Christianist's Supremacy" arguments and those are easily fought back by pointing out that if that is the war they want to declare then I am well within my rights pushing for my religion's supremacy.

Which then gets us into a discussion of the origins and constitutional role of religion in government.

Please note this is not to argue the legitimacy of your statements; I believe you are correct on all points and my own antidotal experiences match yours.

How much money would businesses save if you separated healthcare from employment?

Huge amounts. It would be a big boon to our private sector especially when compared to international corporations.

This would also benefit the healthcare consumer too, as there wouldn't be money wasted on competing systems, and additional overhead for advertising, if we used a single payer system. In addition if a single payer system was used (and allow to negotiate) then bulk savings would help even more.

Even a hybrid system such as what Britain has would help significantly.

I love the ideas but how is everything supposed to be paid for? Taxes are onerous enough as it is as a small business owner. As a small business owner, it would be delightful to see the proposed reductions of red tape but most importantly the 'tax relief and simplification'. What I have yet to find is the proposed methods. Tax credits aren't worth very much. Tax reduction to employee levels would free up a great deal of gross profit to be further invested in taking advantage of...

Well we could start killing some of the subsidies for corporations. By many estimates that would account for 100 billion dollars a year allowing for one year's worth paying for the entirety of the 80 billion dollar plan President Obama put forth for free college. We would then have enough the next year to pay for a complete renovation of our national parks.

Or perhaps we could reduce some military hardware spending.

We could of course simply raise taxes too. It's insane to me that we somehow have sold that taxes are so "hard" when in actuality the final tax rate for many businesses is lower than it has been in for around half a century.

I think there is room for some adjustments and reductions in the difficulty in the tax code... but that would mean that we would have to admit some ugly truths about our government, tax system, mores, and society as a whole that I honestly don't think our nation is ready to view.

By the way that's direct subsidies, not special tax loops which account for around another 100 billion a year. We could hit those instead and leave the subsidies in place.

If one is liberal, why not look at ways to WIN the election, rather than call everyone else names and trying to scare them...

So leave the republicans to their own tactics?

Honestly what more do you want on positive persuasion?

Cleaning and maintaining the environment. Even if somehow global warming is a scam this would reduce reliance on foreign parties, and increase independence as well as promoting healthier living and cleaner air and water for everyone.

Allowing people of different religions to marry within the standards of their religion and telling them to butt out of other people's marriage.

Raising wage requirements so businesses are not being subsidized by government programs and ensuring those that work gain the dignity that's supposed to go with working, while simultaneously reducing dependency on government programs.

Ensuring Worker's rights to organize is maintained and the workers' rights to a safe working environment is maintained. That those that violate these rights are punished appropriately.

A stated desire and awareness of systemic racism and the need to reverse it, demonstrating the ability to recognize past errors and attempt to correct them.

Pushing to both sustain and improve our educational system.

I mean you could simply read the platform for yourself.

I see a lot to vote for.

thejeff wrote:

NenkotaMoon wrote:

"I think you are racist so I'm not talking to you."

Yea that's great way to go by solving a problem.

OTOH, politely debating their ideas on how to organize society while pretending to ignore the unspoken racism implicit in those ideas isn't very profitable either.

Explaining why a given idea is racist, sexist or [insert applicable bigotry/prejudice or other nastiness here] in conjunction with showing what the debilitating effects are goes a long way to those who don't know, such as KC's buddy up-thread.

Honey rather than vinegar. Vinegar smells nasty, tastes worse and has more uses for cleaning than cooking. Honey is tasty, lasts a ridiculously long time and is seldom used for cleaning. :D

Of course once you've covered them in honey if they still refuse to see or be less hateful then you are well within your rights to release the badger.

Excellent news! I just accepted a new job!

Cons: It's further away and pays less.
Pros: I'm getting out of the for-profit industry and into the non-profit one, and I applied as openly trans! The HR person who called to give me the offer asked me my pronouns.

^_^

The idiot child in me went "I want to choose pronouns!" like I could choose, "Sequious" as a pronoun. I immediately looked at said child in me and went, "Are you an idiot? That's not how any of this works!"

He/I apologize.

Scott Betts wrote:

Captain Battletoad wrote:

It also doesn't make much sense to worry so much about watchlist suspects being able to legally purchase firearms (which by the way applies to <%5 of the people on the list, since only those %5 are US citizens) when we haven't had any major incidents of people buying firearms while on the list and then going on shooting sprees.

The Orlando nightclub shooter would have been prevented from obtaining firearms if the Democratic Party's plan for preventing sales to those who have been investigated by the FBI had been in effect.

"those who have been investigated by the FBI" is far, far broader than I'd be willing to go. And I'm a gun-grabber.:)

Yeah I looked at what they were trying to pass and was like, "Really? We could actually get somewhere and this is the crap you decide to die on?"

You lot still not worked out your elections????

As an impartial international observer all i can say is that your right royally screwed either way

Then I have a lot to question about every part of your status claim except maybe the international part.

Trump's always been big on message control. He works hard to kill the messenger for negative statements about himself and to promote the positives whenever he can even if they aren't real.
Basically he has been a bully that could get away with it because he had money and power for the position he was in. Now he's in politics which is a different field.

He really doesn't like the fact his message control isn't working as well as it has before but at the same time he did choose the party that has been making its own reality for a while which works well with what he wants too.

Is it wrong that I read the thread title and "Weird Science" came to mind?

Meh I was at "With legs that don't stop and curves in all the right places."

Lots of good stuff

Hey, I just want to apologize for not coming back sooner, our internet provider had issues and I've been without connection this weekend.

I have more I want to say but I think I'll wait until I know how I want to say it. Thank you again for the feedback though. I do appreciate different people will approach such complex issues differently.

To divide it out I see it as two different (if related) topic: sexuality and biology. For sexuality I do not have a favored class or archetype. I tend to stay away from any such character with negative traits for homosexual characters that I would accept in heterosexual characters though in order to avoid perpetuating negative stereotypes of homosexuals. An example of this is I might be willing to play a straight evil character that abuses magic for sexual favors but I would not play a homosexual character that does the same, as that is something that homosexuals have regular been accused of (using misinformation to "trick" people into sexual situations). Come to think of it I wouldn't play a female magical seductress normally either for similar reasons. Even though people like that exist across the sexuality spectrum I recognize the mental harm I could inflect playing such a character.

I have not played a trans character but if I did I could see the draw of magic for a character interested in changing genders. I have played characters that desired to change races (from human to elf for example) and for those characters the desire for change wwas so deep they chased magic as a means to fulfill the desire.

I couldn't say if that would be typical or normal for people in those circumstances and would be interested in feedback on that.

Something I've seen that is breaking my heart:

I have a friend that wants children. She is homosexual and that is causing issues with the idea of adopting. She has considered/ is considering invetro but insurance issues and worries of what could happen depending on the next election and supreme court appointee.

Watching this tear her up is horrible, and I wish I had a magic answer for her.

I don't want her suffering to turn into a circus, but I feel if more people saw what this does to individuals it might change their minds and hearts.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Hillary's answers are on point, on target and well stated. I doubt she answered them on her own, but I wouldn't expect her to and that's actually a fine thing to me. IF she did wow, because damn those are some fine answers. As statements of policy I'll take them, as they are confident, competent and well put.

Whether you agree with her policies or not, whether you agree with the resources and advisors she uses to build those policies or not, she is deeply and thoroughly wonky.

AAbsolutely, and I like that about her. What I meant and should have said is if she developed those answers on her own then that is evidence of a masterful policy wonk that has spent time and energy actually thinking on the subjects involved.

Heck even if she didn't do it all herself it still stands as well designed and serious, with time and effort spent on it.

Jill Stein's answer to number 15 was excellent. While I found many of her answers exceptionally vague I do appreciate that one in particular, and feel it addresses some of the concerns about her raised in this thread.

Donald Trump's reply to number 16 was oddly inspired/inspiring. Of course it's the only one he did well on but still a good answer. His answer to number 17 though shows a massive ignorance to what the problem of opioid abuse in the US looks like, which implies his actions will have little to no positive impact on the problem. The fact he only cares about dollars and cents is plain in every answer and his lack of care is shown every time he goes with a "limited resources defer to congress for our priorities".

Hillary's answers are on point, on target and well stated. I doubt she answered them on her own, but I wouldn't expect her to and that's actually a fine thing to me. IF she did wow, because damn those are some fine answers. As statements of policy I'll take them, as they are confident, competent and well put.

Honestly I don't think of what I have as privilege. This isn't to say I'm not treated more equally than the LGBTQIA people are, as I most certainly am; What I mean is that everyone else should be treated the same as I am.

It shouldn't be a privilege to be secure in your sexuality (or lack thereof), race, religion, birth gender, ethnicity, or identity, that should be the norm for everyone.

That is what I hope to help achieve. Not that my privilege disappears, but that the way I have been treated is what everyone can expect from everyone else.

I don't know that I as a white straight male can do anything to help lead in such a case. It is my opinion my place is a supporting role and I can't do more than treat others as I would like to be treated, call others like me out for not doing the same, and support those in the struggle with their movement.

To be clear it isn't my movement because it isn't my struggle, but I will do everything I can to help make that struggle easier, and bring the end to the struggle faster. So I hope I am not a #NotAll type, I hope I am a #HelpYou type.

What I like is that if Kubo was a girl, people would be calling him a total Mary Sue. But because he's a boy, he's just a "cool hero". It's so absurdly transparent sometimes.

A very good movie, though.

Lets consider this claim.

To be a Mary Sue he would need to:

1. Be exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas.
2. Lack any realistic or plot relevant character flaws.
3. Unusual and exceptional backstory
4. Be beloved by ALL, those that aren't loving are treated poorly by the story
5. Outstanding and unusual physical traits
6. Is "to pure for this world" (suggested as an trait to the original term)

So is Kubo exceptionally talented in a wide array of areas?
No. We see him use his magic very well (which covers music/showmanship and origami), but he cooks... rice. Not exactly something a culinary genius is needed to do. At the end he uses a sword passingly well. However he doesn't really pilot the ship he makes, he doesn't know where to find everything, he isn't exactly mister acrobatics all over the place. He manages to shoot a fish under direction from the beetle samurai. His skills are definitely finite and limited to what you might expect a boy of his talents to know, with the obvious exception of his 'epic battle' at the very end. Arguably that was as much the magic of the items he collected as anything else though, and we see that it very much fails him too. He was not some invincible warrior to any extent.

Does Kubo lack any realistic or plot relevant character flaws
Again no. He has character flaws and the plot is in fact predicated on them. If he had been an obedient son we likely would have never left the village as he wouldn't have been out after sunset. In fact his predilection to being a know-it-all, impatience, and not listening to good advice is in many ways what cost his parents later in the story as well. In fact the argument could be made that the entirety of the plot revolves around him growing and working away from his character flaws.

Unusual or exceptional background
Alright completely true. In fact we would have no story without his background. As such this one is true however is not unique to only mary sue characters.

Be beloved by all
Kubo is well liked by most everyone he comes across. Even his extraplanar family 'loves' him as much as they can understand it (to the point they just want to help him ascend to what they think he should be). As such we have no one to judge how those that don't like him are perceived. The underpinnings of the plot include a strong theme of "how do we love each other?" and "do we change for those that claim to love us/ claim to know what is best for us?" There is a huge discussion to be had in regards to this movie and those questions alone. Also while he is beloved by all (as we know them from a monkey, his mom, a beetle samurai, a village, and his aunts and grandfather) we are treated to a very small subset of the world; his family, and a village that has little overarching plot significance.

Outstanding physical traits
In a movie with extraplanar aunts, grandfathers a beetle samurai, a monkey martial mastery mother, a giant skeleton, and glowing hypnotic eyes of death Kubo is most notable for his lack of supernatural physical features. The most he has going for him in this department is his missing eye and presumably that's actually fairly common in the world at large. Sure the reason his eye is missing is a big deal but the eye being missing isn't in and of itself. He's a boy that is missing one eye. That's all. As such he doesn't trigger this one either.

Is Kubo too "pure" for this world?
The origins of Mary Sues typically had a stream of self sacrifice for the greater good. Kubo doesn't do this. In fact in many ways he goes the exact opposite direction forcing those around him to do more because of his unwillingness to change or do something he doesn't want to do. He's headstrong/stubborn to a fault and is all too easily misled. While he has a strong sense of purpose that is hardly the same.

Is Kubo the central character?
Absolutely. It is a story about him, his family, and how people change or don't when pressed by those that claim to love or know best for them. However simply being the lead character does not a mary sue make.

Is Kubo talented in an unusual way?
Again Absolutely. He is descended from "all powerful" outsiders. However he grows into his power, and that power is very much the same as his mothers and inline with what should be expect of his bloodline. Quite frankly all we know is he was able to defeat his grandfather by what amounts to magical trickery.

Now I cannot say that if this had been a female lead that people would not have thrown accusations of Mary Sue at her... but they would have been wrong too.

Honestly we might be dealing with the child of two Mary Sues more than Kubo being one.

Guy Humual wrote:

that's something the DNC knew when they bent the rules in her favor.

Even Sanders said that she won fair and square.

I still find it hilarious people think he wasn't given a fair chance when he literally only joined the party to run for president and then left the party when he didn't won.

But so how it is the party that owns him... what exactly?

I've skirted the parameter of Nuka-world. There are at least two suits of power armor to grab, and three sets of parts to pull from people that will attack you. There is a new set of robot parts and a new firearm as well.

A couple of new armors that haven't wowed me in the slightest.

I will start into the parks this weekend I guess.

Anyway, my story centered around a Surly Italian Teamster talking about a video of Gary Johnson yelling at an interviewer for saying "illegal immigrants."

I only saw it this morning myself, and thought it was pretty f#%*ing cool, so I am surprised to discover that it's a couple of weeks old.

Gary Johnson Loses It! Goes Full PC Over Term 'Illegal Immigrant'

First minute and a half, is how I saw it this morning.

Got to say Johnson has been really playing the statesman well. If the Republicans hadn't thrown him to the curb he could have had this election I think.

Of course that's alternate universe sort of material so who knows but again he's been playing really well to the cameras.

... but Jill Stein's so despicable because she pandered a couple of times to hippies.

So I'm glad you are looking to vote, and Stein is certainly not the worse of the lot, but it's not simply pandering to a couple of hippies, it's pandering to people that are directly responsible for diseases we had killed making a comeback. This sort of pandering literally causes direct suffering for children when they catch small pox and other such diseases.

It actually plays right into terrorist hands (not an exaggeration) when they claim that the vaccines we are trying to give in remote parts of the world are not acceptable in the USA and that we won't give them to our kids.

With that said I of course don't think that's Steins intention or purpose, and the terrorists would find something else if not these sorts of things.

"Clinton might not do what she claims she will do."

"Trump might do what he claims he will do."

If you have any understanding of game theory you should understand why in this case statement one is a better choice than statement two.

Except (again) every time Clinton has been in office she pushes health care reform/single payer or medical care for another group (the 9/11 responders for example).

Now the democrats did fail to get single payer and saying president Obama is a part of that is plenty fair.

But Clinton's starting position has always been single payer.

Abraham spalding wrote:

Grey Lensman wrote:

If what the House says about Clinton is true and after all those investigations, hearings, and taxpayer money spent they still don't have anything concrete despite everyone 'knowing' how criminal she is, then they themselves are grossly incompetent by any objective measure.

I can't bring myself to vote for pathetic incompetents.

The problem is Trey Gowdy and the other Republican members of the house select committee have been caught lying and fabricating evidence against Clinton multiple times. People don't realize this because that part doesn't make the nightly news, only the initial accusations.

So if there was something real it wouldn't matter since the Republicans have literally done worse trying to make something up in the first place.

And that's not to mention leaking classified information in those public hearings. First, back in the Benghazi/Issa days, there was a CIA safe house blown and I'm pretty sure there was something else more recent.

yeah and when you bring it up people claim you are the one projecting... annoying as hell how the well has been poisoned to the point that only the poisoners can make accusations.