Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Feiya

Caineach's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter. 6,036 posts (6,041 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 1 alias.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,036 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

BigDTBone wrote:
Caineach wrote:
We are one of the only industrialized countries with rising infant mortality last I checked.
Indeed, because we are willing to code riskier and riskier cases as live-birth every year.

No. If that were true, the maternal death rate wouldn't also be increasing, like it is in Texas.


We are one of the only industrialized countries with rising infant mortality last I checked.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
CrusaderWolf wrote:

I'm not an expert on US medical infrastructure by any stretch, but I think a lot of the difficulties of Obamacare are it trying to work around the medical insurance industry. Unpopular aspects like the insurance mandate are *required* in order to pay for popular aspects like abolishing lifetime caps or preventing insurance companies from dropping those with preconditions. That's one simplified example, but the ACA would have been dead in the water if it didn't bend over backwards to keep the medical insurance industry profitable.

With a little luck and a lot of lobbying we might be able to reform the ACA closer and closer to genuine single-payer.

One of the major problems is a law that prevents the US government from negotiating drug prices. This allows companies to inflate the price drastically and the Medicare system has no way of pushing back. Regular insurance companies then get to negotiate lower prices, but since that is privately negotiated there is no transparency on how much taxpayers are getting ripped off.


So as a guy I have no idea what people want with this term. I have seen it used for gatekeeping just about as often as I have seen it used as a recruitment tool (for women). I know tons of women who despise the term, and roughly an equal number who actively embrace it. Personally, I try to avoid it because it seems othering, unless I know the person well enough to know they embrace it.

edit: I think it also has very different connotations if you are talking about video game communities or board game communities. I think it is seen more antagonistic and thus also more of a badge of pride by my video gaming friends than my board gaming ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hillary has proposed a financial transaction tax. It's less aggressive than the one Bernie proposed, but still significant.


thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
In contrast, the EU regulations of import of duck eggs is at some thousand pages of text. It is difficult to claim that the markets of today are ANYWHERE near free markets.
Near as I can tell, that's a myth. Due you have a source.

Snopes mentions duck eggs in France being a common variation of a debunked cabbage memo word count that apparently dates back to the 40s.


Sissyl wrote:

The thing is, a free market is not something we have any experience with. Regulations distort the market, making it less free, adding in various other types of incentives, and so on. The bad credit bundles of the 2008 bank crash would be a good example. I agree that regulation is necessary, none of us would like a society with a completely free market - but it is vital that the regulations (like any laws) actually reflect what the people making up the market think is important, and that the rest is left unregulated.

In contrast, the EU regulations of import of duck eggs is at some thousand pages of text. It is difficult to claim that the markets of today are ANYWHERE near free markets.

As for minimum wages, there is a simple and brutal logic to them. A company forced to pay more than they would have to if they outsourced their production would outsource their production. In that situation, you have to either force the company to stay in the country (sound familiar?) or you have to make domestic workers more useful to the company somehow. It is not an easy question how to solve this.

The bad credit bundles were a result of lack of regulation in the market due in large part to deregulation requested by the market. I really don't trust the market to decide what should and should not be regulated.


Sissyl wrote:

Lots of complaining about free markets here. If you get a chance, talk to people who lived in the Soviet bloc about work, money and so on. It is often enlightening.

Generally, everyone had to work, and the state could often decide what you were supposed to do for a living. Every place they could stuff people into was full to bursting, like twenty-five people working in a small museum. Now, this would mean you didn't get much in the way of actual work... but you were forced to actually spend all the time there anyway. Also, the job didn't pay much, as in, literally not enough to survive on for your family.

What people did is pretty obvious. They used the time at work to sleep, so they were rested for the nights, when they participated in the cutthroat (and pretty much free) BLACK market, where they could both get money and the goods they needed to feed their families.

The choice is not between a free market and a regulated market, it's between a legal free market or a black free market.

Now, the former soviet block currently has some of the highest minimum wages in the world, and many of their economies are thriving.


NobodysHome wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Aranna wrote:
The problem is police in bad areas have a s*## job constantly dealing with criminals and angry people with little pay.

Hagerstown is 76% white and 99% yuppie.

From the video it appears that at least three police cars, an ambulance, and a freakin' fire truck showed up... for a bicycle crash.

We aren't talking about the 'mean streets' here.

So no, the dangers of policing are not the problem. BAD policing is the problem.

also, this.

Something else happened here. Not sure what. But that isnt the response for a bike crash. At all.

It is the response for trying to leave the scene of an accident that you caused. Or may have caused. I've seen a biker intentionally ram himself into the side of my friend's car when we were carpooling home from work.

Again, it's that they were required by law to detain her.

People don't understand that sometimes, police are required to hold you, "For your own protection." Especially in situations involving minors.

The police in this situation followed the law by preventing her from leaving.

"Protecting" her? Not so much...

The easiest way to reconcile the situation is to imagine a 6'5", 300-pound linebacker who'd been involved in an accident and who was behaving erratically (refusing medical help, being belligerent towards police, etc.). The duty of the officers on the scene is to ensure that the man does not hurt himself and does not hurt others. They are also required to ensure he does not leave the scene in case he might cause damage elsewhere.

The problem arises when said belligerent linebacker refuses to stay put, and the police have to decide what level of force is "reasonable" to keep him in one place.

The problem goes up several orders of magnitude when it's not a linebacker, but a 100-pound girl, and the force used by police is obviously ludicrously excessive.

But the whole question of, "What crime...

Except they are required by law to take her to a hospital, which they didn't do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

The worst situation I heard of in Sweden was an epileptic who had had a seizure unnoticed by anyone while out on town. He was postictal, which is a difficult situation due to poor inhibition, swaying, aggressiveness. A group of cops found him like that. They assumed he was a junkie and proceeded to beat the living daylights out of him.

Generally, when I have tried to talk to policemen about the importance of showing restraint in using violence even if someone is not instantly complying... they do not even understand the question. They say "oh, that is no problem. If that happens, I just evaluate the risk of the situation and apply the correct amount of force."

We send the police out there because we want to keep people safe. We want a better result than sending out soldiers to kill everyone who does something suspicious. To do their job, the policemen need to be human and have a sense of empathy. It isn't all an equation about the level of risk. And if risk needs to be taken, the policemen are who we pay to take those risks. Safety is NOT job one for a cop. If we do not pay them enough, then that needs to be addressed, but that is another discussion.

If only our police force were held to the same standards as our soldiers in war zones. There would be so many court martials.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
I think the marches and protests have to evolve. Here in Minnesota, they've started disrupting major economic targets and I think that's the way to go. [...] Hit the elites in their pocket book and they can't ignore you.
Maybe...but its also just as likely to annoy people who won't be pissed off at the elites, but rather shift that irritation towards BLM or whatever movement is responsible for the protest.

Perhaps. What would you suggest as an alternate tactic, then?

"Mere" marches and protests are demonstrably ineffective; they can't even get charges filed against the police responsible in many cases. Violent rioting is obviously not a good solution. Targeted protests against specific economic targets risks shifting the irritation as you suggest. Voting is at best a long-term solution, and voting for protest candidates merely makes it more likely that the movement will make negative progress.

I could make a number of arch and darkly sarcastic suggestions (make prank phone calls to local politicians?), but instead I'll admit that I don't have a good answer. What's yours?

Targeted lawsuits? Worked for Scientology.

That may not be as far off as you think, at least for small/medium size police departments. Article about police department insurance. Who would have thought the insurance companies wouldn't like paying out multi-million dollar awards.


Quark Blast wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
As for the price reductions in solar - the price has dropped so precipitously, somewhat from failing to include the installation costs (as whew said), but more so from failing to include the various government subsidies. Government subsidies is real money spent too and needs to be accounted for. In addition there is the maintenance and replacement costs to solar that I don't see factored in either.
You realize US government subsidized coal and natural gas more than solar and wind, right?

Yes, and they are typically factored in when discussing cost.

As we've seen, even in this thread here, somehow renewables get to shine off the full cost of implementation and maintenance.

Not sure how you figure that at all. Pretty much any numbers I have seen include both of those as the primary costs of both wind and solar, including the ones in this thread.

edit addition: More typically, the subsidies given to downstream coal, oil, and natural gas production get ignored when looking at operational costs of the plants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:

I am fluent in British English.

I don't get it.

Giving/flipping someone "the bird" is slang for sticking your middle finger up at them, a derogetory gesture for f**k you/off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
As for the price reductions in solar - the price has dropped so precipitously, somewhat from failing to include the installation costs (as whew said), but more so from failing to include the various government subsidies. Government subsidies is real money spent too and needs to be accounted for. In addition there is the maintenance and replacement costs to solar that I don't see factored in either.

You realize US government subsidized coal and natural gas more than solar and wind, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
You're bringing up his race as if it's inherently relevant to the issue being discussed. While that's probably true for some small segment of the group, I argue that it's by no means the dominant cause. The reason for the spike in gun buying was due to a combination of him being a DEMOCRAT (which is way more relevant to the people prone to hoarding firearms than his race) and the massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse.

What "massively increased spotlight on guns in public discourse"? At least for the first spike in 2008.

There wasn't really much public discourse about it until after Newton.

Except for people in the gun community/business panicking over a Democrat taking guns. Obama certainly didn't focus on it.

Virginia Tech happened 5 years before Newtown, Fort Hood was 3 years before, and the Gabby Giffords shooting in Tucson was the year before, each of which put a pretty heavy spotlight on fun ownership in news broadcasts and in public discourse. I didn't say that Obama focused on it, but rather that the people who ended up causing the spike in gun sales (meaning the people doing the panic-buying) were afraid that he would. Whether or not the fear was well founded is irrelevant and an entirely separate issue (it clearly wasn't).

Yes, but the people doing the panic buying were also the ones who believed Obama to be a secret muslim who wasn't born in the US and thus couldn't legitimately serve as president. I myself am a gun owner, and cannot accept that there's a not-to-one correlation between gun owners and racist. I absolutely don't.

However, we're living in a time when the Republican candidate for president waited until last f**king week to state that he didn't believe the birther conspiracy. I don't see how you can deny Obama's race being a factor in any criticism of him at this point.

That reads like I'm saying you can't disagree with his policies...

I would just like to point out, Trump has now said the only reason he gave up the birther conspiracy was because he was tired of the questions interrupting his campaign message source


Snorter wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
If your behavior is frequently and consistently seen as racist by a sufficiently wide range of independent groups of people, your behavior is almost certainly racist.

So, you're saying that you accept all the allegations made against Hilary Clinton over the last 40 years are indisputably true?

Because, if a lot of people say a thing, over a long period of time, that makes it impossible to argue against.
In your opinion.

Because after all, "If your behavior is frequently and consistently seen as dishonest by a sufficiently wide range of independent groups of people, your behavior is almost certainly dishonest."

Right?

You missed the part where he said a sufficiently wide range of independent groups. Her political enemies is not a wide range of groups.


Sundakan wrote:

I watched it a while back, up to about episode 8.

I found it pretty boring, and laughably predictable myself.

** spoiler omitted **

I have enjoyed a lot slower series than this. I mean, I love Hanbei Renmei and I think the most action that series has is a bike falling over.


Greylurker wrote:
Well the new deal betweeen Crunchyroll and Funimation has given CRunchy access to Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash. If you have not seen this wonderful series you should. It is a great portrayal of starting adventurers in a fantasy world.

I've started it and thoroughly enjoy it


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.
He wasn't winning the black vote in those states. And he really did not make much of an effort to reach out. He focused heavily on the overall blue collar population, but even adding a token staffer from Black Lives Matter, didn't raise him much in the black vote vs. Clinton.
Why do you consider the black vote the only ethnic minority?
I don't. It's a damm important bloc however. I don't know if he was doing well with the Hispanic sector, there wasn't however a Hispanic Lives Matter group protesting Sander's speeches though.

That's one thing I don't really get. Sanders was the first candidate to put forth a platform addressing issues of BLM. He openly invited them to meetings, but somehow people criticize him for not reaching out African American community.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.
He wasn't winning the black vote in those states. And he really did not make much of an effort to reach out. He focused heavily on the overall blue collar population, but even adding a token staffer from Black Lives Matter, didn't raise him much in the black vote vs. Clinton.

Why do you consider the black vote the only ethnic minority?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

"Thrown around" is a very fair description of how I heard it used. As I said in my earlier post, the analysts on the news outlets I follow didn't conflate the two. I certainly didn't hear it used often enough to say that the Clinton campaign used accusations of sexism to gain voter sympathy.

I wouldn't categorize it as a ploy for sympathy, rather an attempt to dismiss a surging opposition to the nomination. It was a way of saying "these young voters don't know this issues, they're just uninformed misogynists that can't stand the idea of a woman president" and had it ended there it would have been laughable, sad but otherwise not particularly noteworthy. The term was used by the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times to name a few. I don't have a problem calling out trolls, but when you attach a candidates name to the term, suggest that they represent typical Sanders supporters, well then we have a problem. I don't doubt for a second that someone was making crude and sexist comments to Clinton and her supporters, you can just look at the typical YouTube comments section to realize what people are capable of, but then to lay that toxicity on another candidate, well that's dirty politics.

Now as to the point about Sanders supports being frustrated by the media, the majority of the press around Sanders was negative, but that's hardly surprising, most of the media is owned by very wealthy individuals who would have payed considerably more under a Sanders tax plan. So is it then surprising that the Sanders supporters objected to the negative press?

Every single news source I paid attention to started using Berniebro as a synonym for Bernie supporter. It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.
Which "news sources" were those exactly? If every single "news...

I saw it on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, ABC, Huffington Post...

As for diverse states, Hawaii, Alaska, and Washington are 3 of the top 10 most diverse states in the country. The night he won 2 of them by huge margins was filled with how he only does well among whites. CCN called Hawaii "one of the whitest states of the country" while at the same time espousing the diversity of Wisconsin, one of the actual whitest states.


Guy Humual wrote:
Hitdice wrote:

"Thrown around" is a very fair description of how I heard it used. As I said in my earlier post, the analysts on the news outlets I follow didn't conflate the two. I certainly didn't hear it used often enough to say that the Clinton campaign used accusations of sexism to gain voter sympathy.

I wouldn't categorize it as a ploy for sympathy, rather an attempt to dismiss a surging opposition to the nomination. It was a way of saying "these young voters don't know this issues, they're just uninformed misogynists that can't stand the idea of a woman president" and had it ended there it would have been laughable, sad but otherwise not particularly noteworthy. The term was used by the Atlantic, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and the Los Angeles Times to name a few. I don't have a problem calling out trolls, but when you attach a candidates name to the term, suggest that they represent typical Sanders supporters, well then we have a problem. I don't doubt for a second that someone was making crude and sexist comments to Clinton and her supporters, you can just look at the typical YouTube comments section to realize what people are capable of, but then to lay that toxicity on another candidate, well that's dirty politics.

Now as to the point about Sanders supports being frustrated by the media, the majority of the press around Sanders was negative, but that's hardly surprising, most of the media is owned by very wealthy individuals who would have payed considerably more under a Sanders tax plan. So is it then surprising that the Sanders supporters objected to the negative press?

Every single news source I paid attention to started using Berniebro as a synonym for Bernie supporter. It was really amusing watching Bernie win some of the most ethnically diverse states in the country and have the commentary that night be how he only wins young white men.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone in the thread who dimly suspects that any part of Trump's campaign is maybe acting? That he's intentionally pandering to the tinfoil-hat electorate but doesn't actually support a lot of the crap he's spouting? (In other words, that he's like pretty much every other candidate ever, in that respect)

I don't for a second doubt he's a racist, imperialistic buffoon with the business sense of a squirrel, but all of the "Trump is much worse than Cthulhu!" stuff is starting to seem maybe a bit overblown.

I genuinely believe that he is unhinged enough to not only believe everything he says, but not understand why everyone doesn't love what he is saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump has said he would nuke the Middle East, bring back torture (in a big way), advocates killing innocent people in order to punish terrorists, and just recently said if he was in charge he would have fired on Iranian boats but you're worried about Clinton.
To be clear, I'm not worried about Clinton, I'm uninspired by her. I'm complaining that I don't think she's got the interests of the average American at heart. Make no mistake, if Trump is at all earnest about any of his claims he'll become one of history's greatest monsters, but do you think 8 years of Clinton will get us Bernie Sanders type of politician? Or will the DNC pull the same strings to get another status quo politician? What makes me upset is having a leader that we have to fight, tooth and nail, to take progressive stances that would benefit the majority of Americans, and our only incentive to vote for her is a presidential monster of cartoonish levels.
I think with Clinton we get someone who has fought harder for "Bernie Sanders type of politics" and with more success than Bernie Sanders.

I've got a bridge to sell you


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That's no reason to hope someone will win an election.
My point is that it's no reason to vote for Clinton. Trump is a disaster but Clinton has to win people's votes, you can't just run on the "I'm not Trump" ticket. There are two other people on that ticket and one, Jill Stein, is better on the environment.

This is actually a really good point people keep forgetting. Kerry ran on an anyone but Bush platform and lost against a hugely disliked candidate. He only had reasons to vote against Bush, but didn't actually advertise the reasons to vote for him. I see Clinton followers making a lot of the same mistakes.


Guy Humual wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:

I wouldn't vote for Trump, he's making all sorts of promises, not the sort I'd be interested in, but certainly he's suggesting things that would be very hard to pass into law. On the other hand I'd have gladly voted for Sanders. Maybe he couldn't deliver on his promises but he would have at least fought for them.

Clinton's message then seems to be: lower your expectations. We'll only do whatever the republicans will allow.

Maybe that's good enough for you but if I can't vote for someone who's at least willing to fight than why vote at all? If things are so impossible to get though the house and senate than why's Trump a big threat?

Because Trump would be approaching it from the other side. The same entrenched majority in the House that prevents single payer would be glad to repeal the ACA outright -- and would have the votes to do it. Ditto the (presumptive) Senate majority the Republicans would hold if Trump is victorious. Clinton's veto pen can prevent that.

Basically, you have three choices : an improvement, the status quo, or things getting much worse. Except that the improvement is not actually a choice, because it's not actually possible. But there's still a very real choice between keeping the status quo and allowing things to get much, much worse.

Why not let them burn it to the ground then? Democrats did well after Bush and and presumably Trump would be far far worse. Maybe what we need to get change again is to remind independent voters how horrible a republican government can be.

Because the house is over firecode limits based off of the number of emergency exits and not everyone will get out safely.


thejeff wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
What I'd gladly vote for is someone willing to fight. If we're giving up before the ballots are even cast than what's supposed to motivate me to vote for her?

So you want someone to promise you things they know they can't deliver?

I suppose you'll then be mad at them for breaking their promises.

Again, "art of the possible". That's what good politicians work with. It'll be enough of a fight to get even minor improvements through.

Except that allows your opponents to control the narrative on what is normal and shift the baseline of what is acceptable towards their views.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I recommend Asian black teas, as I find them much milder and balanced, but they are much harder to find unless you get a place that sells good loose leaf.


I really hope Clinton hammers Trump's fire all the generals comment in areas with heavy military populations.


Of course instead of talking about how bad Trump's answers were to questions last night, people are talking about how s$++ty a job the moderator did. Huffington Post headline "Lauer Cowers"


RDM42 wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It can be read as "A woman's only value is bearing children, thus the Widow is a monster because she can't." I think it's far better read as a thing that is deeply traumatic to many women and far more so when it was deliberately inflicted on them.

So would a scene with a man having been castrated and having a similar reaction be 'problematic' or only with women?

If I'm recalling that scene correctly, Bruce Banner is complaining about not being able to have kids too.


I've got to agree with Lord Snow. I have no idea why the internet got up in arms over that scene. Its a great scene.


thejeff wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:


Related question. Do people really drink that much?

The drinking seemed over the top to me. I've never seen an office with bars built in or wine on every desk. Or a pharmacy with beer on tap.

I suspect that's partly intentional - reflecting what the world looked like to her when she was trying to stay sober - temptation everywhere.
I dunno, booze is everywhere in tech, and abundant in workplaces.

Maybe? I don't work in a startup or anything like that, so maybe the culture is different. I mean, sure people drink after work and talk about drinking, but not openly drinking at work. No bottles on the office desks or anything. Closest would be going out for lunch and having a drink or two.

Or at office parties, but that's not work time.

My buddy works for a startup in Seattle and brags about the kegs in the office. If your sober at work your in the minority, and there is a very fraty mentality. Meanwhile, the most I have ever seen is groups that hit up a bar and have maybe 1 beer, 2 on special occasions, at lunch, and while there is some discussions about alcohol, no one talks about getting wasted as recent things. I think it has a lot to do with the corporate environment you are in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Fergie wrote:
But when you have the neolibs saying that there is no problem, someone acknowledging the problem is at least past the denial phase.
I'm sorry, but the entire left wing is currently based on the idea that there is currently multiple massive problems. You are literally quoting the corporate right and attributing it to the left.
Is there a difference between the corporate right and the corporate left?

You can look at net neutrality as an example - with the Democrats supporting the content providers and the Republicans supporting the service providers.

Or the solar energy industry v. the coal industry. (Or global warming.)

All sorts of economic related issues with semi-arbitrary splits on which party is affiliated with which side, though Republicans tend to be consistently on whichever side would be worse for the environment and/or the public =P

Well both seem to be married to the oil industry, fracking for example, and while the democratic platform gives lip service to being against it, they didn't actually suggest banning it. Factor in that Ken Salazar has been named to lead Hilary's transition team, a man that's not only pro fracking but also green lit a number of off shore drilling operations when he was Secretary of the Interior, and you have to wonder exactly what the difference between a typical republican government and a Hilary government regarding the oil industry.

There is a reason I say the democrats are a center-right party


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
But when you have the neolibs saying that there is no problem, someone acknowledging the problem is at least past the denial phase.

I'm sorry, but the entire left wing is currently based on the idea that there is currently multiple massive problems. You are literally quoting the corporate right and attributing it to the left.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed BNW. Democrats are far to right of center.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Berserker444 wrote:
I could just as easily Google several political standings for the left that are anti many of those points you just stated so I can't exactly say I agree.

1)That have actually made it into policy pushes, not just one leftwing nut on the internet calling for making pet ownership illegal?

2) That are as counterfactual as anthropocentric climate change denial, evolution denial, or trickle down economics?

3) The anti vaccine thing is one of those things where it's under the plane, you walk far enough out to the left or right and that's where you wind up.

Anti-Vax and Anti-GMO are the only 2 things I can think of that even remotely compare and both of those are routinely denounced by others on the left and are almost equal in their support between left and right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
It's amazing how you have confused a comma for a a period and then ignored the entire rest of the sentence.

Your clarification compared her to Trump with bad branding. Trump is actively courting white supremacists. If he doesn't qualify as part of the crazy right, I don't know what does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:
I did no such thing.
You compared Jill Stein to Trump in terms of danger. The fact that you think these are remotely close is staggering.
That isn't what I said at all.
In response to
thejeff wrote:

So who on the left is "just as dangerous and scary"?

Are they anywhere near as prominent as their equivalents on the right?

your first response is
Quote:
Jill Stein, well, that's not really fair, she's more a left-wing flavored version of Trump with worse branding.

Its exactly what you did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
I did no such thing.

You compared Jill Stein to Trump in terms of danger. The fact that you think these are remotely close is staggering.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Your getting awful defensive there Jeff...

you're the one trying to make false equivalencies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like this article tearing apart the AP

Quote:
The State Department is a big operation. So is the Clinton Foundation. The AP put a lot of work into this project. And it couldn’t come up with anything that looks worse than helping a Nobel Prize winner, raising money to finance AIDS education, and doing an introduction for the chair of the Kennedy Center. It’s kind of surprising.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Krensky wrote:
And it seems Tiny Donnie may well have broken the law by having his campaign purchase over $55,000 worth if his book from Barnes & Nobel's (because buying them from the publisher directly, which is more the norm doesn't count for the NYT Best Seller list). If he received royalties for those copies he's broken the law.

The alleged billionaire's campaign is also soliciting foreign nationals for campaign donations.

His campaign might also be making illegal tax-free payments to campaign staff... twice.

His campaign has paid for the services of the Draper Sterling firm. Someone created a legal entity with the name of a firm from Mad Men. The Trump campaign has paid them about $35,000, and another super-PAC has paid them $56,000. For what? No one knows (or at least no public information is available).

I would not be surprised to find out that the ownership of the Sterling Firm ultimately traces back to Trump himself.

I forget where I saw this, but from what I remember it traced back to a longtime buddy of his but not to Trump directly.


Scott Betts wrote:

In their defense (not that they deserve one), it's basically a cardinal rule of campaigning that you cannot appear to anticipate anything other than a victory. I'm sure they don't believe it, but they absolutely must come up with a rationalization that allows them to behave outwardly as though they are winning, while facing polling numbers that make it clear that the race is basically unwinnable.

Last election it was "The polls are skewed, the unskewed polls show that we're winning." This election it's "The polls are wrong, because a lot of our voters are scared to admit they support Trump." It's nonsense, they know it's nonsense, we know it's nonsense, most of the world at large knows it's nonsense, but it's infinitely preferable to, "Yeah, we're getting destroyed."

The thing is, the didn't know it was nonsense last election. In fact, last week, a Fox reporter basically called the poll inaccuracy line b&+%%!&~, because she refuses to get duped again, reminding people of how stunned they were when the polls turned out to be right.


thejeff wrote:

Exactly. I mean how are we supposed to add all these pieces up: Clinton is a warmonger who has to be bribed to sell more weapons to dictators. The bribes are donations to a charity that she doesn't directly benefit from and that is widely respected for its work and highly rated by the various groups that track such things. Neither her nor Bill or Chelsea collect money from the Foundation - they're not paid a salary by it or anything else. In fact, Clinton also donates the bribes she collects as speaking fees.

It really isn't clear how this nefarious scheme is supposed to work.

Beyond that, the Clintons are making plans not only to have the Foundation stop accepting donations from foreign governments while she's president, but possibly to spin it off from them entirely.

Meanwhile, we're told a little way back in this discussion that Trump's loans from other countries and business ventures in other countries won't influence him, even though he benefits from them directly and plans to retain ownership while President, just letting his children do the active management.
Admittedly, Trump hasn't yet been bribed to abuse his governmental authority - because he has never had any. He has allegedly been on the other side of that equation.

To the last point "He has allegedly been on the other side of that equation." - during the primaries one of his attacks on his opponents was that he had bought them.


Kevin Mack wrote:

Angry joe not very pleased with it

Angry joe

Kinda glad I can't run it and got a refund now.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Actually, this may be my big problem with the article. It implies that these are new, undisclosed emails by Clinton that were hidden, when in reality these were not new. They are emails that the Justice Department obtained through their investigation that they cleared her in, but that she no longer had, and therefore previous freedom of information requests to the state department couldn't grant. The headline is a big part of why the article comes across as misleading.

"Washington (CNN)A federal judge set a preliminary schedule Monday for the release of nearly 15,000 documents between Hillary Clinton and top aides when she was the secretary of state.

The State Department was directed to assess 14,900 documents it received from the FBI as part of the investigation into Clinton's use of her private email server while she was secretary of state, determine a plan to release the documents and report back to the court September 23. "
I may well be wrong, (and dear god help me, I'm reading cnn) but it sure sounds like these are new emails that have not been gone over by anyone. EDIT: This headline also seems to indicate that these are new emails.

"Clinton’s lawyers also may have deleted some of the emails as “personal,” Comey said, noting their review relied on header information and search terms, not a line-by-line reading as the FBI conducted." -WP article. Given that Clinton's lawyers seemed to be the ones doing the filtering, I don't trust their idea of what should be given over for investigation and what should not.

I don't really think there is anything in Clinton's emails that would affect her supporters one way or the other. Maybe something that could get people to vote against her, but her supporters seem willing...

Except none of this is actually new information. The FBI said during their investigation that they recreated thousands of emails that she had deleted, either through reconstruction on old servers or because the people she corresponded with still had them. The only change here is that the FBI has turned over all the emails they collected to the State Department, and the State Department is going slowly in complying with a freedom of information request about them because they have to verify the content. These aren't new emails into an investigation, they are just previously unreleased to the public. Not to mention many of them may have already been released because the 2 collections of emails, the FBI's and the State Departments, haven't been integrated with each other.

This is a non-story trying to be made into a story.\

edit: and that is why it is a bad article. Its implying that these are new and sensational, when they have already been looked at by the FBI (otherwise they wouldn't be turning them over to the state department), and they have been found to be not incriminating. All that is news is that the State Department is being slow to comply with a witch hunt.


Hitdice wrote:
Rednal wrote:
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.

The headline doesn't agree with the body of the article. The headline says "another," but the article doesn't mention any email that weren't reviewed during the FBI investigation. Not that I'm arguing with you, Red. I guess I'm pointing out to Doodles that while a two-time pulitzer finalist* wrote the article, it sure wasn't one who wrote the headline.

*Doesn't that make him a two-time loser, though? You know why the US gets more olympic medals than any other country? 'Cause we count the silvers and the bronzes and, like, every other nation on earth just counts the golds, 'cause second and third aren't wins.

Actually, this may be my big problem with the article. It implies that these are new, undisclosed emails by Clinton that were hidden, when in reality these were not new. They are emails that the Justice Department obtained through their investigation that they cleared her in, but that she no longer had, and therefore previous freedom of information requests to the state department couldn't grant. The headline is a big part of why the article comes across as misleading.


Rednal wrote:
And in something that will probably come up in Trump's commentary soon, the FBI found another 14,900 documents from Clinton not previously disclosed as part of the email probe.

Talk about a s~%&ty article. Then again, I don't expect much from the WP.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

Without organized backing, you have an even lower chance of mounting any kind of successful challenge to an incumbent running as a third party.

Have you ever noticed that very few high jumpers have cleared more than 8 feet? That's obviously a very difficult task. And the few who have done it have done it without wearing a suit of armor. And no one has ever cleared 9 feet, or even 8' 1".

Obviously, if you want to high jump 9', you need to think out of the box; your secret should be that you make your world record attempt while wearing plate armor.

Basically, you're saying "it's unlikely that I will succeed doing something that has been shown to work within living memory, so instead I will try to do something that has never been successful within the past two hundred years." I'm very glad for your sake that you're not choosing the soft option..... <roll eyes>

You mean like the Socialist Party, whose policies were taken over by the New Deal Democrats when they started to gain traction? I'm not saying that the 3rd party will be effective in getting elected. I'm saying that increasing their support will cause their policies to get subsumed by the larger parties. That's why it's a protest vote.

1 to 50 of 6,036 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.