|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Neliahad no argument there Instead she pointed past him, toward the palace. "What's that?" she asked. "That line in the sky.""The River of Souls," he answered.
She made an incredulous noise, and Salim liked at her with a raised eyebrow.
"I just always thought that was a metaphor," she said, and bushed slightly.
This time Salim's smile held actual humor. "I think you'll find, Lady, that there's more truth to most of the children's stories than you'd expect."
-- Death's Heretic, 147-48:
Saw Dr Strange. Some random thoughts.
1. Missed the verbal spells. Some Crimson Bands of Cyttorak would have been appreciated.
2. The car accident was fantastic.
3. I missed the old Asian Ancient one.
4. Chiwetel Ejiofor was great as Mordo.
5. The reviews were right, it's worth watching in 3D.
6. Fantastic special effects.
I can't think of a single japanese actress who is well known enough to have draw for American audiences.
It appears to be a money thing. Big studios don't want to risk money on unknowns (to an American audience). Many, many movies don't get made the way the fans might want them to because of business concerns,
Would you rather have Scarlett J or no big budget Hollywood movie? Studios aren't going to risk big money ($100 million plus production and advertising -my guess) on unknowns.
Vote with your wallet. Make sure you don't watch it. Green is the only color the big studios care about.
I've also read Shirer's book, cover to cover. All 1486 pages, not counting the index. The paper is browning but I still have my copy. If anyone truly believes some of what is being said by the irresponsible talking heads I suggest you read it. Even better, visit a Holocaust museum. There's one about two blocks from my office - it has a display in the lobby showing true evil done to populations over the last centry.
Our political system is by its nature designed to prevent the dictatorship some people (on the news) are suggesting. As the original poster said, to the Republic.
Also, I personally find calling any person a Nazi or a Hitler as offensive as using the n-bomb. Many adults my age and older feel that way. Unless you're actually talking about someone who comitted crimes against humanity, please stop.
Regarding the electoral system. I never believed in its fairness or efficacy until the 2000 election. The raw politics of fighting over every single vote ballet, with political lackeys arguing over obvious stray marks or the infamous hanging chads was crazy. Imagine arguing over every vote ballet in every state. The electoral system by design limits this craziness.
Podesta has announced that Clinton would not be speaking tonight. I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she just didn't expect to lose, and so didn't have anything prepared. As opposed to being mentally/physically/emotionally unable to speak, or simply being petty.
In other news, apparently America has crashed Canada's immigration website.
Edit: The Canada website crash during the election is a true story.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Virginia called for Clinton Electoral total 168 to 122 for Trump. Hopes for Clinton rising partially from the ashes. But it's now Clinton with the narrowing paths to victory as opposed to Trump.
Yeah. I've followed the whole 538- Trump gas a 35% chance of winning vs Slate's Trump has a 2% chance of winning and 538 is wrong.
Even if Clinton pulls out the win, Slate's stat department has egg on its face.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
"Reopen" is an apprporiate general term for what happened, and is one every news organization is using. "Reactivated" is probably more accurate, but I haven't heard it used even once.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
So old school, new school, and post-modern RPGs.
In 2016, I agree with you. Other years, not so much.
Edit: Any reasonable Democratic candidate would be 20 points ahead of Mr. Trump.
EnWorld links to a ICv2 announcement of an Adventurer's Guide. It sounds like a campaign hardcover, but the picture has the RPG line logo.
1. Which line is it in? Is it an Adventure Path like the ACG with so much material they forgot the adventure?
2. Will we get an announcement on the Paizo boards/site soon?
3. Was this a secret project?
By Urgathoa's boney buttocks, I say thee nay. Oft in my search for knowledge, only a necromancied post on an ancient thread has revealed the current rule.
The locking of threads shall is trading of new thoughts for efficiency. 'Tis a glamour which will only result in retred thoughts and searches inefficient.
So if I understand you correctly (and I may not), if Hillary becomes President, baring shenanigans with the Supreme Court appointments (not just Scalia, but likely Ginsburg and Kennedy in the next 4 years) voter suppression will practically end and the Republicans will never win on the national (presidential) level again?
Also what was done to the Voting Rights Act last year. Shelby County v Holder was issued in 2013, was there something after it?
So Trump is right and the system is rigged?
While they certainly provide a greater social net than the US, political scientists don't describe Scandinavian countries as socialist. Think Ikea. Huge difference inthe scale of government control.
1. I don't know of any Supreme Court Justices who have no judicial experience, or no actual legal experience. Chief Justice Warren had only a few years worth, but he did have some. I only checked the justices from the last hundred years from this list, so if there was one in the 1700s or 1800s, let me know. Most of the Supreme Court's case load is death penalty review, and federal statutory construction. The sexy constitutional stuff is what makes the press.
2. I've only read two of Judge Posner's books, but I agree he is Supreme Court material. He was (is still?) an adjunct professor at U Chicago (or as they term it a Senior Lecturer). Judge Posner has 35 years of experience as an appellate judge, which alone qualifies him. Not sure what you're trying to say. President Obama was an adjunct professor (part time, non tenured, ect). That was clear in my original post.
As for President Obama being "qualified", as stated above there are no actual qualifications. It will never happen, but hey, I may be wrong -- look at President/ Chief Justice Taft.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Congrats. Ability to make choices good.
1. President Obama has little legal experience actually practicing law. Has he ever practiced law inside an actual courtroom? All the current justices have had a great deal of actual courtroom experience.
2. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago as an adjunct(Wikipedia lists his final title as Senior Lecturer), but I don't think that going to be high on the list of qualifications.
3. Why would he go from the presidency to being an Associate Justice? His boss would be Chief Justice Roberts.
4. A President H. Clinton would want to put her own stamp on the Supreme Court.
Again, it may be private funding meetings or something similar, not health related. But H. Clinton is having far less rallies than President Obama during the same period during 2012. See this website for his schedule. Of course, President Obama wasn't a CEO, just the President of the United States.
I do think comments like she looks tired, or he sounds unhinged are within the bounds of appropriate political commentary. I don't think lay people, or even medical doctors, should pseudo diagnose people they have never examined with alleged physical or mental issues.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Wow that's a thin schedule for H Clinton. Including considering where it says public events are only listed a few days in advance. Presumambly she is doing a lot of private fundraisers, or running is taking a toll on her.
And this isn't even the usual political/corporate corruption kind of thing, where you have subordinates convicted right and left, but can't quite get the evidence to prove the head figure was guilty. She doesn't have people taking the fall for her.
Whether or not it is more or less than other presidential candidates (I wouldn't even think there's a fair way to measure), the Clintons are certainly associated with people who have criminal records. Did they take a dive for the Clintons, unknown and never proven.
Sant Chatwal, as one example.
Short answer: yes.
Slightly longer answer: I want to go from 15-20 year old banged up particle board to something moderately more classy.
I disagree. If you are required to vote (show up or provide an excuse) I believe there will be less opportunity for people to be kept from voting by "soft" measures. More exactly, I believe that a person's desire to vote will increase so measures to disenfranchise them would be far less effective.
But, I will concede the more research I do tonight shows that there are lower hanging - more cost effective - fruits than stricter ID laws, such as purging voter rolls of dead people, having states be able to check against other states to remove people who move, ect.
Not having sufficient places to vote and long lines are legitimate concerns. I've had to wait two hours to vote, I can't imagine doing that when having to pick up kids, get to work, ect.
FYI, compulsory voting has been required in Australia since 1924. It works for the most part. You either vote (more precisely show up, you don't actually have to vote), or mail an excuse form, or pay a small fine. In these days of absentee voting, and early voting, it would work wonders to get everybody voting.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I admit to being lazy and not checking. Still, do you agree that people shouldn't be on the voting lists in two states at the same time?
EDIT: OK now checked, they do look a little nutso so disregard.
And voter disenfranchisement is bigger by orders of magnitude than either. That's the problem. That's where we should be focusing. If we can deal with that, then maybe it'd be worth looking at the minor stuff.
That's easier. Fine people who neither vote or file an excuse card, similar to jury duty.
@ Orfamay Quest
At least you moved from "not a trace" to not worth it (if I understand you correctly, not trying to put words in your mouth). I wonder how many people would be caught if we actually looked for voter fraud by requiring ID for voting, like most of the industrialzed world.
I do see the point that non ID fraud is possibly (likely?) a bigger source of voting fraud.
Paying for it on a scale to make a difference would be a huge operation. There hasn't been a trace of it found in decades.
Cost/benefit analysis is always appropriate. And the structural issues vs individual fraud issues is a fair point especially in light of cost vs benefit."There hasn't been a trace if it in decades" were going to have to disagree on.
See ABC's reporting here.