|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I'll quote Jeb Bush again back in the aftermath of 2104: A Republican candidate would need to "lose the primary to win the general".
I know this is a typo, but given the way the Bush dynasty has been going on for decades with little end in sight, I can't help imagining a dystopian future where the great great grandkids of various late 1990's politicians are still running for office.curls into fetal position and hides under couch
HA! When I typed "define: " into google to figure out the first sentence of BNW's post, the auto-fill was HILARIOUS! Apparently, we aren't the only ones who noticed issues with Trumps speech.
On broadcast TV tonight, the choices include:
Please rank these from Most to Least Conservative. Thank you.
Note: The Ayn Rand movie is the edited for television version, not the X-rated directors cut.
"Cleveland also paid $1.5 million to an insurance broker to secure a $10 million policy for liabilities relating to the convention. “Protest insurance” has become common for cities hosting political conventions and is intended to protect the city and its employees, including officers, against any claims and losses arising from its role as RNC host, including its “law enforcement, safety, and security services,” city officials wrote in a call for bids. But the implication of the insurance policy — that the city assumes it will be sued over its handling of protests — doesn’t sit well with civil rights advocates. “These policies go far beyond general slip and fall type coverage,” said Rosnick. “They also indemnify the city for lawsuits related to constitutional violations and other civil liberties concerns.”
Be careful out there everyone, when a city buys insurance against lawsuits, they plan on doing some serious rights violations!
The post about be being there is more of a joke really. I'll be in Cleveland for a brief stopover during a train ride west. I probably won't see much more then the train station itself. I just think it is a very funny coincidence that I will be randomly in the same city as the RNC given my history with the event. I don't recall ever being in Cleveland, and the one time I am, the RNC is in town. Ugh.
The correct answer is:"A series of written communication cascading from an initial posting, but that's not important right now."
Also, I'll NEVER get over Macho Grande!
EDIT: Wait, wait wait! I can carry a real AR-15, but not a toy gun, tennis balls, or canned goods? This country is f~*!ing INSANE!
Anyone else watch Harmonquest?
I was a huge fan of Community, so I had high expectations. I can honestly say I was not disappointed. There was some really funny stuff in there, and it is always enjoyable to watch people with a good sense of humor play the game. I also thought it was cool that they used Pathfinder.
I like the sort of "drunk history" mix of in and out of character, and thought they did a great job of throwing in occasion versions of their real selves in the animated scenes.
I thought it seemed a little short at 23 minutes, but with the crazy format, I'm not sure I would want it to be much longer. I think it would be cool if they got a little more into some of the details of the characters, but I realize that is something that would make most non-gamers eyes glaze over. I think if they can tweak the format a little, this could draw a big audience.
I'm looking forward to the next episode.
Oh please! No thinking person, anywhere, ever asked for ideologically purity. It is a preposterous strawman, that distracts from completely legit criticism. There is a world of difference between compromise, and throwing the majority of the population under the bus for the interests of the .01%. Hillary is one of the most pro-free trade/globalization, pro-Wall Street/Banks, politicians in modern times. She is also one of the most hawkish politicians in the mainstream.
NO ONE is asking for purity, we just want someone who didn't go to Trumps third wedding, because he gave her money, so she owed him.
What, if I may ask, would you do if you lived elsewhere?
I would vote for someone who represented my interests, not the .01%. I should point out that in many other democracies around the world, this would not be unreasonable, or even out of the mainstream.
Scott Betts wrote:
But what about those who contribute equally to both? Which seems to be almost all the top two dozen largest publicly traded corporations? How do you explain that?
Also, I don't really care what Hillary, or most politicians have to say, because they have not proven themselves trustworthy. I care what they do when in MATTERS. Anyone can say nice things, or take a stand when it doesn't matter, but when it counts, what do they do? Hillary (and Obama) talk a strong leftist game, but they play their hand for the interests of the rich.
As I have mentioned before, I live in New York, which is about as much of a democratic safe state as you can get. If NY is even close, the republican has won by a landslide. My vote for Hillary or Trump is absolutely meaningless. I don't think anyone who is aware of the electoral college could disagree. I could vote for a third party candidate, but that is problematic, as has been previously discussed.
EDIT2: Just want to say that while we disagree Scott, and others in this thread, I enjoy reading everyone's opinions, and find them very insightful and thought provoking.
Depends where you look:
"The broad discontent is reflected in the head-to-head contest, which has Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton tied at 40 percent. Mr. Trump’s standing has held steady for weeks at around 40 percentage points, while Mrs. Clinton has polled in the mid-40s in most public surveys."
Scott Betts wrote:
Apologies Scott. I had attempted to address your points individually, but I just made a mess of the quotes. I used the two above quotes because I respect your opinion, but would like to clarify where my outlook differs on process, if not policy.
First, on cynicism:
I don't think it is at all out of line to question those who are ceded power in a society. Democracy is not built on trust, but accountability. This is especially true when that power is mixed with money, particularly in a capitalist society. I also note that the mixing of wealth and politics has produced serious problems around the world for thousands of years, and I would say that modern times and our country are no exception. I would also say that I view lobbying as a form of bribery, that has become accepted the way the church once accepted money for "indulgences". Modern politicians often act as Professional "pardoners" who allow the extremely wealthy to get over on the rest of society.
To be more specific, I would cite Hillary's use of 9/11 to justify accepting large amounts of money from wealthy Wall Street donors. As a New Yorker, and more importantly a citizen, I found that VERY offensive. Furthermore, I found her tale of going to Wall Street, and "telling those guys to knock it off!" to be preposterous, and also an insult to the intelligence of those listening. I find her associations with the Council on Foreign Relations to be completely inappropriate, and horrible for the majority of the US and world as a whole.
I think she is absolutely wrong on trade and globalization, and has been for decades. I would point out her close ties to Wal-Mart, and the rise of Chinese imports/outsourcing of US jobs. The Clinton administration, the Obama administration and by her own statements her administration were all characterized by gains going to the wealthy, while the middle class lost jobs and saw wages stagnate. Is this an accident or a coincidence?
I think she is absolutely wrong on supporting dictators from the Middle East to South America. "Mubarak was a close personal friend". I also find her unconditional support of Israel unconscionable, and against international law.
I think her zeal for militarism is revolting. Her supporting the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, as was her pushing for the invasion of Libya. I think her ties to various military figures, such as Petraus, and his boyz James Steele, (Comeny?) and others (Kissinger the war criminal) to be huge red flags.
I think her support for the prison industrial complex is also a national tragedy. I think her record on minorities is despicable. When I was wrongly arrested along with 1,800 others, before the 2004 RNC in NYC, she did nothing as my Senator.
I respect her for her push for single payer healthcare in the 90's. On the other hand, the "Obamacare" that she more recently supported, is a clear favor to the large insurance and pharmaceutical companies who drafted it, (and who some in the obama administration now work for). We were promised a single payer option...
I could go on, but I think everyone gets the idea. Hillary does not share my values, nor do I consider her progressive, liberal, or even a leftist. There is no way I would EVER vote for her to "represent" me.
I would disagree with the value of the Democratic Platform. Or I should say, I don't think Party Platforms are anything more then lies told to fool voters. As far as influencing policy, all Bernie did was add voters to Hillary. She will say a bunch of stuff, but like every candidate in the last couple of decades, she is just going to serve the corporate interests. They paid her, and she works for them. Like Trump paid her,and she went to his third wedding. She isn't going to do a damn thing different once she gets into office, because she doesn't need to. She knows that people will vote for her, despite years of serving the .01%. In terms of policy, Sanders accomplished absolutely nothing.
What he DID accomplish was to make Socialism a possibility in the United States for the first time in half a century. Socialist is no longer a dirty word, and if younger voters are any indication, it has a possible future in politics. This is a MAJOR change, and not something even diehard socialists thought would be possible for years and years to come. Bernie did it in a few months. That is an amazing change, and one that both parties will be fighting against in the future.
I don't really see any signs of The People seeing the system is illegitimate,... more
I would turn it around and say, "I don't really see any signs of The People seeing the system as legitimate."Based on approval ratings for the legislative branch that have been hovering in the 10-20% range for years now. And the two most hated candidates in history competing for president. I can't remember the last time I talked to someone about politics who didn't use words like "dysfunctional, broken, and corrupt." There might have been a time when people only felt that way about the opposition, but that is now how seemingly everyone feels about their own Party (if they still affiliate with one). I suspect both conventions are going to be s!@@shows, and those are supposed to be showcases by and for the party.
People love to write off non-voters as uncaring or uninformed, but increasingly people feel that they are being asked, or told to play a clearly rigged game. At this point it is basically like being asked to put your stamp of approval on a system that is actively working against your interests, and people are either not voting, or seeking candidates like Sanders and Trump who have little connection to the political parties.
The common wisdom around the barracks was "Don't vote, you'll get a boot in the ass either way. What size it is doesn't matter."
What is the deal with voting in the military? When you are stateside, do they provide you with a polling place if you are on-base? I recall something about overseas military ballots being counted after others, or potentially not counted unless the election is close? Is that just some weird Florida law from 2000 or am I totally mistaken?
captain yesterday wrote:
For those that get posts eaten, I've found preview is more often than not the culprit. I recommend just hitting submit post, then edit as you need to. :-)
I type very slowly, so I'm usually good about hitting Ctrl+A, Ctrl+C, (select All, Copy) before I hit post. This time, I used the search function of the browser while on the reply page. Of course when I hit the back button, my post was gone. This was 100% me, 0% messageboard.
Yeah, but Democratic primary voters like Clinton better than Sanders. Which is what matters.
I had something written about delegate count, and superdelegates being pledged from the start and Wasserman-schultz, and what a scam the system is, but it got eaten.
Shorter version is that the power to govern is supposedly derived from "the will of the people". The People, however, see that the system is illegitimate, and does not represent them. If those in power want to maintain the pretension of a democracy, rather then oligarchy backed by police/military force, they need to make some serious changes. Regardless of who wins, the next elections are going to make this one look normal and boring.
There is a revolution coming, and while I would love it to be a Socialist love fest, the Cliven Bundy types are out in front, and I think they have different plans...
EDIT: He may be America's Mussolini, but he is right about this:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Yeah, but DIO rocked with Dio, and some of Ozzy's solo stuff was meh.
Bernie did what he had to do (and what he said he was going to do) in order to run as a Dem. The only surprise was that America likes an elderly Socialist with a fairly low charisma score better then Hillary.
I think people have finally figured out what a scam the two parties are, and are getting very angry at being talked down to and ridiculed when they don't vote for a candidate who is obviously going to throw them under the bus. The very wealthy and their corporate media are entirely complicit in this.
Trump, Sanders and to a large degree, Brexit are the people saying "F-U" to a system that has been screwing them for decades. Those in power can either make some major systemic changes, or they will lose their power in something much uglier then a wacky election.
Also, there are few things more meaningless then a "Party Platform". Follow the money, not the b%##*$!~. (Although I did find it odd that the Hillary backers would not disavow the TTP...)
Yes, the GM blew it, yes the OP manipulated the GMs ignorance, thus blew it, and yes, even without this ridiculous character OP brought in, this game was probably doomed. I couldn't come up with a better story to illustrate what not to do and why, it is almost a fable.
I don't think it is fair to say, "the OP manipulated the GMs ignorance". From my reading, they spent a couple of sessions together building characters, and discussed what was allowed and what was not. That seems to be the best possible way to approach starting a campaign together. Why that failed so spectacularly to avoid the train wreck that ensued is the big question...I suspect:
A) The GM assumed that Paizo material was basically balanced, and free of broken options and combos.
B) That not all of these things would be occurring simultaneously.
C) That high level play was similar to low or mid level play.
D) That being a "Good GM" means being very permissive and generous, and not limiting players options.
E) That limits to spells like Planar Binding are the type of thing to handwave away.
F) That higher level challenges would somehow be immune or resistant to summons, spells, tactics, etc.
G) That things like a wizards low AC, or other "weaknesses" mattered.
None of these things are really true, and it is unfortunate that it had to come to a head like this. I think you are 100% right about this being the perfect fable of How a God Wizard Can Break a Game
"NY Post, what you just wrote is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent article, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
*Why bother to have pants in Pathfinder when there’s no magical item which goes in that slot and no penalty in the rules for failing to wear pants? Flaunting the fact you’re not wearing pants when you walk down the street or perhaps have an audience with the King could be amusing for some folks like, “Nobody can force me to conform to cultural norms!”
I blame "chain shirt" armor. I have literally seen two players totally new to the game decided that they would not wear pants after selecting this armor.
Just a random side thought. Look up Solars. CR 23, 20th level cleric caster, 2X treasure. That Solar was the most powerful thing at the table, and would have been the one calling the shots. Also, there is basically no amount of treasure in the world that would make a Solar join a party with anti-paladins and a undead making cleric.
A Letter to the New York Post
OK, I'll be the first to admit that it is a poor analogy. And you are totally right that while PunPun is some obscure rules twisting and jumping through bizarre hoops, most things mentioned were core. I was attempting to point out that what was being done was essentially stacking optimization to levels that passed from a powerful character, into theoretical optimization cheese levels.
For example, take the strongest class - Wizard, the strongest school specialization - conjuration, the strongest (debatable) tactic - adding minions/summoning, the strongest summon - solar. and then add in a few feats that juice it even more, and it is a fairly ridiculous string of choices for anything other then a "Break the game" contest. Adding clones, Leadership, and your planar allies summoned creatures, puts it into farcical territory. That is is almost all legal and core does not mean it isn't kind of ridiculous. It just shows that the game is easily broken.
But really the kicker, and this is where the GM just seems... delusional, is that YOU ALREADY HAVE SIX PLAYERS! Six characters are a handful! But then you have a cleric who is supposed to have a bunch of undead, a couple of players who have pet demons, Leadership, and you allow juiced up planar ally, and clones, and summoning, and a freaking construct and more? THIS IS CRAZY! You should not allow that at 8th level, much less 18th!
"One Pet Per Person, Parrots Preferred!" - Yellowbeard
I agree 100%, but I think in this case, there is a large amount of GM hubris to blame as well.Starting 6 levels above where you have every played before?
Six characters? AND the GM wants a GMPC also!?
25pt buy with custom races?
I think at a certain point, the GM really needs to have some sense of what is going on, especially if players are bringing up balance issues and you keep going, "yeah, I got this". If you go over this stuff, ban blood money and added value from crafting (neither of which is that[ broken compared to other allowed options), but allow all this other stuff... It just shows a delusional faith in his GM skills, (or he is a GM GOD!)
I think dysartes essentially nailed it- this campaign is a car speeding towards a cliff. If you don't want to ride it into a fiery crash, get out now!
OK, the entire idea of an 25pt buy 18th level mini campaign with custom this and that is a BAD IDEA from the start. The 3 "protest" anti-paladins are a HUGE red flag that people are not starting in good faith. Bringing a core monk or rogue would probably be more then this GM (and honestly most gm's) can handle.
I hate to tell you this but:
Yeah, your GM let you have all the tools to break his game, but it was your choice to actually break it... Honestly, that character is the Pathfinder version of PunPun, and should never be brought into an actual game.
I would recommend just skipping this campaign. If you really, really want to take part, make an actual "character" not just a collection of the most broken crap in the game.
You Must Learn!
Although based on the article Comrade Anklebiter posted, "...Blumenbach rejected racial hierarchy and emphasized the unity of mankind.”"
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Haven't been able to follow the Brexit thread as close as I would like,...
Neither have I, but I did find this article by Glen Greenwald, that I thought was dead on.
I particularly liked this quote, "...supporters of Trump, Brexit, and other anti-establishment movements “are motivated not so much by whether they think the projects will actually work, but more by their desire to say F##! YOU” to those they believe (with very good reason) have failed them."
Remember kids, just say no to "2+Int Mod" skills per level.
While I agree on some levels, there are a few problems with this idea.There is only so much you can give a class, before it is just better then other classes. I think clerics and druids (and probably summoners) are a good example of classes that got too many toys, without substantial restrictions. If you get 9th level spells, 3/4 BAB, 2 good saves, and can wear full plate and swing a greatsword if you just drop a feat on each, you don't need much more. If you want more skills, give up some BAB, or better yet some spell casting. Fighters deserve more skills, full casters deserve less casting.
I know this is a hugely unpopular thing to suggest, but how about building characters that have some skills? Drop your highest stat down a point, and get a 12 Int. Spend a favored class bonus on skill instead of HP. Be a human or half elf. Take a feat that increases your skills. One of the best kept secrets of the message boards is that the game is not that difficult. You don't need maxed out stats to be successful. Even a fighter can have decent skills, and still kick ass in CR appropriate encounters. Considering the game is about having fun, many people will find greater enjoyment participating in more of the game, rather then dominating specific aspects.
Finally, these things are all relative. For example, rogues currently get 6 more skill points then a cleric. If you bump up the clerics skills, then the rogue is less powerful then he was before. The "skill classes*" should be valuable because other classes can't get the same levels of access, at least not without jumping through hoops.
* Unfortunately, wizards end up falling into this category, although they probably should not.
Protest policing in the US mostly uses the Miami Model. This a somewhat complex set of tactics used by police for not just crowd control, but also propaganda (or media relations, or social control or whatever you want to call it.
[Note: Some of this post has previously appeared in the "Trouble in Fergietown" thread.]
Twelve years ago, I was arrested when the Miami Model was used during the 2004 RNC visit to New York City. I was right in the middle of a situation that could very well be described as riotous, and was arrested. The NYPD Brute Squad beat up my friend, impounded hundreds of bicycles, and slapped overly tight zip cuffs on hundreds of us. Then things got weirder. We were held overnight in a huge really filthy bus repair building. In this big place they had built metal chainlink cages topped with coiled razorwire. The next day, a variety of handcuff arrangements, hours spent on a hot bus, mugshots, fingerprints, bologna, and late that night, I finally saw a judge and appointed defense attorney. That was the first time since my arrest that I found out what I was accused of: Two counts of Disorderly Conduct (blocking traffic and failure to disperse), Parading Without a Permit, and Obstruction of Government Administration (a misdemeanor similar to resisting arrest). Over 24 hours after I was detained, I was an indited criminal, released until my next court date. The mayor said that the actions of some protesters were like a "form of terrorism", and 1,800 others would have near identical experiences that week.
However, things didn't actually happen the way the prosecutors claimed. Many people had video taped the arrests and protests. When it came to light that the city was editing video evidence and this was reported in the NY Times, my criminal charges were dropped, as were many of the 1,800 people arrested that week. In fact, about 90% of the cases related to the RNC have been dismissed.
Several lawsuits have been filed against NYC. Two years ago the largest protest related class action settlement in history had been awarded to those arrested. It took over 10 years, and my share was unimpressive, but I finally got paid. As nice as the money is, it leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth knowing that the organizers of the arrests suffered absolutely no consequences, and the tax payers got stuck with the bill.
I don't really know what to tell people who will be in the city during the RNC. [Note: my arrest happened before the RNC officially started, so consider the police response to include the week before the RNC as well.] The police arrest people not based on what they are doing but rather where they happen to be at the moment. In other words, don't think you won't be arrested, just because you are obeying the law. The best advice is to film EVRYTHING! That can mean the difference between being convicted for a crime you didn't commit, or getting a settlement check in 2026.
Also read up on the Miami Model, and understand how and why the police operate. You can look at almost any major protest event in the last dozen years and see the same patterns, so it is not very original at this point.
S Court wrote:
Based on a quick skim of the documents, it sounds like this case made it to the supreme court because the search occurred AFTER the police found out the guy had an existing warrant. I suspect if the police searched the guy before finding out about the warrant, then the evidence would have been thrown out. (just my guess)
The main thing I took away from my brief reading is that it is unlawful to stop someone without probable cause, and that it is also illegal to charge someone based on said stop. Therefore, Stop and Frisk is F#!#ING ILLEGAL! The NYPD has been making tens (hundreds) of thousands of illegal stops and there are probably tens of thousands of people wrapped up in the "justice" system because of it! Enforce the law, and prosecute the police!
Makes me wish I lived in a country where the law applied to the police and government not just poor and minorities.
According to Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, this won't cause police overreach because the threat of civil suits will keep them in line.
Ahhhh, Justice Thomas! F that guy in the ear! The lawsuit I was part of against the NYPD took over 10 years from my arrest date before I got paid! What a joke. Also, that money comes from tax dollars, not the NYPD specifically, so it is basically just raising peoples taxes because the police can't follow the law.
I found high stats to be one of the easiest ways to upset game balance. Primarily this is because the more aspects of play that you can contribute to, the more fun you will have. If your character can only meaningfully participate in combat, or only in adventuring situations, you are going to be bored when other aspects of play come up. For example, if you make a PC with a 6 charisma, you are going to be a detriment to the party in any social situation. On the other end of the spectrum, high stats generally make you dominate at things your character is already good at. For example, if you start you wizard with a 20 Int, and then craft items that boost it even more, you will be able to throw out spells that almost no monster can save against. You will not just be effective at what you do ,you will be neigh unstoppable.
Finally, high stats are much more effective for some characters then others. That wizard for example gets almost all of his power from Int. If you drop other scores, and boost your Int, you will be better at almost everything, because everything you do is Int based. On the other hand, a monk, needs wisdom, strength, and also con, and dex because you will be on the front lines. The monk just can't get those whopping high stats, because he is spread so thin. This is often a problem because full casters are usually the ones who are considered "overpowered", while non-casters tend to lag in power later in the game.
The best advice I can give is to start characters off by evening out their ability scores. For example, it is much more difficult to become a game shattering god wizard with a starting intelligence score of 16. I recommend limiting the max starting ability scores (AFTER racial adjustments) to 16! For the same evening-out reasons, I also recommend limiting minimum stats to 10 or 8 (AFTER racial adjustments). These limits will encourage PCs more capable of dealing with a variety of situations, and less able to damage game balance.
In general, stats are supposed to climb throughout the game, and that is part of the fun of leveling up and gaining treasure. If you start stats off fairly low, then you don't have to worry about restricting access to higher scores later on.
Here are some numbers for a generic 10th level fighter
Level 10 Fighter Secondary Damage
Level 10 Fighter Tertiary Damage
If I recall, I assumed weapon focus and specialization on the primary weapon, and no feats for secondary or third weapon. I assumed greatsword for primary, long bow for secondary and short sword for tertiary.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
I had a long (rambling) response to this, the Ms. Martin video, Sander's "personal foibles," and Clinton's ipecac-ness, but meh.
Well, for what it is worth, I thought your earlier post about sanders and voting and such was very interesting and persuasive. It made me consider what my outlook would be if I lived in a swing state, and how living in NY affected my political beliefs more then I had considered. It's easy to take a stance when you know your vote won't matter, it is interesting to roleplay what it would be like if it did. Or I could just rollplay and let the dice decide!
I don't know if anyone's mind will be changed either way, but participating in these discussions makes me a whole lot less cynical then I would be if I just listened to TV and radio talking heads. One of the few things that make me optimistic about the future is that actual humans (and goblins) beliefs and priorities have almost nothing to do with those of politicians of either party. I love hearing a well made argument
I don't know, I was thinking of starting another thread of something like political predictions, but I don't want to create more work for the moderators. If anyone has a good idea for a polititroll thread that won't immediately end in tragedy, that might be a good way to keep the Hillary vs Trumpy type stuff out of this thread.
Wealthy backers certainly influence the campaigns, but even in New York you and all the other independents could join the party of your choice a month ahead of time and have your voice heard (admittedly drowned out in the millions of others, but there's no way around that). If you're too principled to do that, even to vote for a candidate you do like, there's really nothing I can say.
I think what you say sounds perfectly reasonable. But our election laws are NOT reasonable- they are b@~%#&~# that is intended to keep the masses from interfering with those in power.
As I said, I'm an independent voter, (as opposed to an unregistered voter), so I would have had to join the Democratic Party back in the first week of October 2015. And obviously stay a Democrat for six months.
But honestly, why bother? The Democrats made no secret about how Hillary was supposed to win. The race was slanted in Hillary's favor before it even started (super delegates, Debbie "Her Turn" Shultz, etc. I would be declaring my allegiance to the very people rigging the election against my chosen candidate. Why would any sane person choose that? What kind of piss poor excuse for "democracy" is a system like that?
EDIT: Hawkins 4 LIFE B%%~#ES!
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Sanders wasn't running as an Independent, he was running as a Democrat, which is essentially a private club choosing who to place on it's ballot. If you're not willing to join the club and abide by it's rules, you don't have an implied right to vote in the primary.
That is basically my point, BOTH parties are private clubs operated in the interests of their wealthy backers. If the private clubs set the system up so that your two choices are Mr. Monopoly and Richie Rich, then you get to vote, that isn't democracy, because neither represents the will of the people. I don't want to join their corrupt club, nor do I accept their right to "represent" me in a democracy.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
And given how Nader has consistently badmouthed the Democratic Party which is the closest of the two to being his ally, as well as happily taking money from their Republican enemies, it's really no surprise that they'd be happy to return the favor.
I think the main point is that The Two Parties have no credibility representing anyone but the .1%. The Two Parties just use different dog whistles to appeal to different segments of voters, but serving the moneyed interests is their real purpose. Nader and to a lesser extent Sanders actually represent voters, not donors, and that is a serious threat to both parties. The entire political system of this country is based around serving the interests of the donor class, while wrapping yourself in the flag of democracy in order to get votes. None of the politicians really give a f++~ about most of these social issues, as long as the wealth gets transferred to the top. The system they set up is working perfectly for them, and has been my whole life. I don't see anything that offers even a slight hope of improvement.
Nader is MORE of a threat to the democrats, because he represents many of the people they claim to represent, and that shows how phoney they are.
In just about every poll I saw before the AP/NYTimes called the democratic race for Hillary, Bernie was trouncing Trump in a general election, while Hillary was squeaking out a win. If you looked at the three candidates approval and disapproval ratings, Bernie DESTROYED both Trump and Clinton. Looking at the numbers, it was baffling to understand what kind of "democracy" would end up with Sanders not even in the race, even though he was far more popular then the other two options.
The problem is that our voting system is a sham democracy. As an independent voter from NY (I should note that independents are a far larger group nationally, then democrats or republicans) I never had the chance to vote in the primary. My states votes go to the democrat in the general election unless it is a total shut-out (e.g. Reagan 1980), so my vote truly does not matter. I don't mean that it is a drop in the bucket, or needle in the haystack, I mean it is totally pointless. All my vote can hope to accomplish is to to add legitimacy to the sham system.
In the past I voted for third party candidates, but thanks to many aspects of the system being made up by Dems/Repubs, that is a total dead end. Just look at how the Democrats treated Ralph Nader with all the ballot lawsuits and stuff. That is a large reason I would never register as a Democrat. That feeling was confirmed by this primary season. Bernie's money came from small contributions, while Hillary and the Party served their large donors. They represented totally different interests. It was very clear from the very beginning that The Party backed Hillary, and that Sanders had a huge handicap to overcome before the race even started. Bernie was undercut by his own team, before the race even started. Before anyone brings up Obama's "insurgent" 2008 campaign, that was totally different because Obama was, and remains a total shill to the interests of the .1%. He and The Party were always on the same page.
There is a reason that in every election the choice is b%#+#@$@- Who in Skull & Bones would you like to be president? Who at Trumps wedding would you like to be president? What kind of democracy puts up the most hated candidates in history as the only two choices? What kind of democracy has approval ratings in the teens for it's congress?
There comes a point when you have to look at a system that puts unpopular people in charge and question where the mandate for governing comes from. Does anyone still think we are governed by the people, for the people? If not, where does their power come from? What kind of government do we have?
Ugh! I've had to force medicate rats and ferrets, and its ROUGH! Cats are well bigger and have much sharper claws. (House Cat Vs Commoner... FIGHT!)
If all else fails, the pills should get easier for both of you with a little time.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
THANKS Ambrosia! Also, many positive vibes to thejeff's cat!
In a flood of good will, everyone's post gets a favorite! I'm off to watch Star Trek 4 - The One With the Wales In It.
Yeah, it's all a clever conspiracy or something.
I never implied that there was conspiracy involved, only that everyone is doing exactly what they are paid to do. If you look at the money, intentions are as plain as day.
I think "We are to the left of Antonin Scalia!, (And wouldn't make any practical difference)" should be the Democrats new campaign slogan.
Trump is going to win Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, and a variety of other swing states. If it can be described as "Rust Belt" trump is going to destroy Hillary. What he lacks in actual voters, he makes up for in disenfranchised voters. Also, many, many people voting for Hillary are just voting against trump. Her supporters are old, and lack enthusiasm. Trump's supporters are actually fired up and believe the stuff he says, even though it contradicts the other stuff he says. You can say Trump's style shows no sign of actually getting elected, but he just defeated the republican establishment. No one predicted it, no one understands it, and for that reason, they are not going to be able to stop it. If you think otherwise, why did you not see the rise of Trump? Why were the Republicans unable to stop it even with Romney's "fraud and a charlatan speech"?
The only way I see Hillary winning is if people like Karl Rove and the Koch Bros get behind her (which they might). I think that would say more about her as a candidate they any words coming out of her mouth.
Bernie was just the democrats attempt to get a few more lefties on board for Hillary. I don't think he was supposed to do well at all, and it is amazing that a socialist would be the hands down winner of the election if the two party system were not standing in the way of democracy. Everything seems to be working out well enough, as the democrats can give lip service to the Left, while completely selling out to Wall Street. In an election, she is going to say the right buzz words, but just like Obama, she is going to do whatever The Council on Foreign Relations and Wall Street tell her to do. Like going to trumps third wedding, she does what the ultra rich pay her to do.
Also, you can say that the election matters because of the supreme court, but just look who Obama nominated - hardly a friend to the Left. He doesn't even want to overturn Citizens United. Democrats say nice things, but when it comes down to it, they fold on everything except a few social issues, and even those come pathetically late, and tend to affect a very small minority, while the social and economic policies badly screw the vast majority of Americans.
My prediction* is that trump will win due to the electoral college, and the fact that he is operating on a new level from politicians in the past (with the possible exception of Sarah Palin). It is like the Kennedy Nixon debate. Hillary supporters are like radio listeners thinking their Nixon did a great job, while television watchers thought the exact opposite. The Democrats are going to do everything needed to win an election in the TV Age, but they are going to find out (the same way the Republicans found out) that the TV Age has been over for years.
* My predictions have a margin of error close to 100%, so don't get too bent out of shape over them.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
No problem, I wasn't able to make it down to NYC anyway. On the plus side, I have been enjoying watching back episodes of Empire Files.
If you are going to be in NYC at the end of the month, check out the
Global Capitalism: June 2016 Monthly Update
Also, Bike Film Festival this upcoming weekend at the Anthology Film Archives.