|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I think people would have come out to vote for Bernie, that some of those people that voted for Trump would have preferred to vote for Bernie instead, and while I can't be certain that he would have gotten as many votes as Obama did in 2008, I'm sure he could have gotten at least more then Mitt Romney did in 2012.
People wanted an outsider, you had a political revolution, and while it was quashed on the left people think they got what they wanted on the right. I can't imagine Trump working out though, he's going to take away people's health care within a few weeks of taking office, he'll take the US out of the Paris climate change accord, might cancel the Iranian deal, heck his first few weeks might be completely about breaking things rather then fixing anything. He's starting out as a deeply unpopular president, government is sitting at all time low approval ratings, and I can't imagine either number going up as their main priority has been to destroy Obama's legacy.
Up here in Canada we seldom have our Prime Minister picked by the majority of voters, it happens, but more often then not he or she wins with 40% of the popular vote. We usually have 4 parties at the national level though, two major parties that have formed the government, the liberals and conservatives, a national socialist party that has formed the official opposition in the past, the NDP, and usually a regional party that exists mainly in Quebec, the Bloc. Last election we saw Trudeau winning a majority with just less then 40% of the popular vote.
Personally I like minority government situations, it feels like nobody is going to do anything too extreme because the ruling party needs the support of at least one other group to pass anything.
However our system is being reviewed at the moment and we may be moving to a more European proportional system rather then first past the post. The major fear with that is that you will have more regional parties as it's very easy to form a party at the provincial level or even city level, and win enough of the local vote to get into government then it is to maintain a national party. This could lead to a very fractured country but I suspect it would mean higher election turn outs.
We have the same problems you guys in the states have, there are liberal and conservative strongholds, and if you're not voting for the incumbent you're pretty much wasting your time. We've never had a voter turn out quite as low as the Americans but it has been trending lower over the years, our lowest turn out in Canadian history was back in 2008, ahead of Obama's historic win, where we had 58.8%, which I believe may still have been higher then one of the highest US turn outs of the past 20 or 30 years.
What's the man difference? Well we have great access to voting up here in Canada, I've voted in every single election since I was old enough to vote and I've never had more then a 10 minute wait to vote. Usually I'm in and done in under 5 minutes. The biggest hassle came under Harper where we actually had to have some form of ID to prove we were who we said we were. Just about anything with a picture is accepted though, and we can vouch for someone living at the same address, and they'll also accept bills, like the water bill, made out to you with the same address. It's very easy to vote. Even prisoners are allowed to vote. The other thing is we don't vote directly for our Prime minister, we vote for our member of parliament, and whichever party has the most seats gets to form the government. This means we're usually voting for someone we like at the local level rather then who's leading at the national level. It's not always the case, last election Trudeau picked up 60 new seats, including my ridding, and I'd never even heard of my MP before the election.
The other main difference is that our ballots are usually much simpler, often all we're voting for is the candidate for a single level of government. If it's a federal election, we're voting for our MP, provincial we're voting for our MLA, and municipal we're voting for mayor and city councilor. We don't have ballot initiatives, rarely have referendums and so our ballots are very simple. There's no need to study multiple initiatives, candidates on different levels, and for this reason voting is less of a hassle and is quicker.
If there's anything Americans can learn form the Canadian system is debatable, our systems are pretty different, but I do think voter suppression on the level we see in the US is pretty unique in the West. I mean it happens, but not on the level we see in the states, and having government officials bragging about it seem very unsavory. If there's anything threatening the Republic I'd have to say it's that.
Kevin Mack wrote:
Stop me if I'm mistaken but I think a large part of the problem is not that people voted for trump but almost 50% of the country either diddent vote at all or they ignored the president part of the ballot and focused on the other sections..
Trump got less votes then Mitt Romney and still won.
I'm curious, yet dubious of Trump's claim to work on unification. Kind of hard to accomplish when you have contempt for a segment of the population. Be an interesting couple of years ahead of us all.
Well, I'm not a great scholar of world history, but as I understand it after the camps and ghettos are up and running the rest of the country should start being a lot more unified.
First of all I'm Canadian, I'm very happy with our national system, second of all, the US pays, per capita more then any other western country on your health care system. The US is already putting more money into their health care system then Norway or Sweden. Employers pay into that cost, as does the government, and then the private citizens. Because there's few national programs drug companies and health care providers have more power in the negotiation of pricing, the veterans program for example enjoys lower drug costs then most other plans because they're a national program and can ask for lower prices. If the US had a single payer program they could easily force drug costs down and balance hospital fees across the country.
Begs the question: How can you afford lower drug costs?
Do you know why the debt went up so much? Because of a thing called the deficit. The US was spending much more then it was making. That's a deficit. The last time the US had a surplus, and was starting to pay down the debt was under Bill Clinton. Then Bush took over.
After that smoking crater Obama was handed the worst economic rescission since the great depression, after eight years he's almost got the deficit under control. Now Trump is likely to take over.
The USA is done with the corrupt Clintons, who have no solution for 20 trillion in debt and how to pay for this failed socialist utopian dream.
Well I do hope you enjoy your upcomming dystopian reality
My health insurance went up $9,000 last year. It will go up more this year under the ridiculous Affordable Care Act. The elites in Washington are being shown the door. None too soon.
I'm sorry, you think that Trump is going to fix that how? They get rid of the affordable care act that doesn't stop insurance agents from being greedy MF, all that will change is that you revert back to the old system where they can reject you for preexisting conditions if you have any and they'll keep the same rates.
The oligarchy doesn't allow people they don't like to win primaries. That's why Bernie didn't win. In 4 years you'll have another batch of corporatist democrats hand picked by them and likely America will be in such bad shape by then that people will be happy for a "revolution".
That's never been a surprise to me. What is a surprise is how the democrats failed to motivate them. People were excited by Trump because he's anti establishment (or so he claims) whereas Hillary was on the "Not Trump" ticket. I guess there are people who still haven't felt any gains in the last eight years and they still blame the bankers. Meanwhile Hillary has aligned herself with Wallstreet. All the money in the world but that might not be enough to help her. She may still pull this off but it's going to be very close.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
That supposes they would want the objective facts over their version of Truthiness.
It could be Trumpiness, as we all know from Colbert, "Truthiness comes from the gut, but Trumpiness comes from further down the intestinal track."
I have to say once again that I'm very happy that I don't have to make the choices you guys are making this election cycle. Clinton seems like a terrible candidate but somehow Trump is even worse. I'd vote 3rd party myself but apparently everyone is conditioned against that regardless of how horrible their main party candidates are. The scariest thing about this election is how close it is. Now obviously the alt right see this as reclaiming the White House, they're willing to put the stupidest, most unqualified, dishonest, narcissist to ever run in my lifetime, probably one of the worst candidates in the history of the US, but they're willing to do that because Obama was black and a democrat. On the other side we have a candidate that went into the primaries with baggage, but even with all the insider help form the DNC, millions of dollars from donors and super packs, media help, the political machine that has won the White House, senate seats, and the governorship in a republican state, she still had a tight run from a virtually unknown socialist from a tiny unimportant state. They're both horrible. If I had to pick one of the main candidates I'd go with Hillary, but I'd prefer to go with Jill Stein. Heck even Gary Johnson, who seems to be monumentally stupid seems like a far better pick then Trump at this point. But that scary fact is that Clinton and Trump are almost tied.
Regardless of who wins that's something that's deeply disturbing.
NPC Dave wrote:
Also, just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean it's at all personal. People argue all the time, I consider myself on the left, but if someone claimed that Hilary is the best candidate I would take issue with that, and would argue with them. It doesn't mean that we don't agree on 50% to 90% of the issues.
Also, arguing isn't about having someone change their position completely, I don't think I've ever seen that happen, but it is about trying to get the other side to better understand your position and to understand theirs. Having someone challenge your ideas is a way to test your beliefs and positions. If you find something shaky then it also gives you the chance to try to hammer out those position. Sometimes you'll find a middle ground.
At this point I'm not sure I understand NPC Dave's position but that's why we're challenging him, to see if he can elaborate so we can understand his reasoning.
female Tiefling 10th level Duskblade
Karrin nods at the mention of food and eating. She begins digging into her bag of everlasting rations as if testing to see if she has a case of false advertising against the shop who sold it to her.
It is akin to watching an anaconda swallow a gazelle whole and then, after being amazed at the feat, watching that same anaconda slither back to the buffet and pop a capybara and a half dozen emu eggs on her plate, and then, after she returns to her table, and she happily cleans her plate, having it painfully obvious that she's not eating more because she's now aware that you're watching her. I mean you could say it's no big deal, you've seen others eat as much, but you haven't and it is freakish to behold, you're not sure you could tell her that lie, so instead you try to pretend that it was something behind her that had caught your interest, caused those wide eyed stares of shock and amazement, she glances behind her to pretend, for both of you really, that that was what it was. That it was something behind her. However you both know that it wasn't and that awkwardness shall always remain. You stop going to that buffet afterwards for fear of seeing her again.
Watching Karrin eat is like that.
Come on, are you trying to trigger him? Can't this be a safe space?
I loved Colbert's line at that Bush correspondents dinner:
"And by those standards sir you've set up a fine government in Iraq"
I think I posted this elsewhere, but 17% of the US is Hispanic, and the majority of them support the Democratic ticket, 12% of the US is African American and the majority of them support the Democratic ticket, only about 1% of the US population is Muslim and they're a culturally insignificant number to worry about nationally. So when Trump comes out against Mexicans, wants stop and frisk nationally, wants to ban all Muslims that's not going to hurt the average republican. They literally don't care about those statements. Now when Trump brags about sexual assault that's 50% of the country and likely 50% of the republican base, that's why they're suddenly "appalled" at Trump's conduct. Certainly there seemed to be a sudden need to distance themselves from trump, but as I've also said elsewhere, Trump supporters are maniacs and support him regardless. People who claim to have been appalled and now are returning to Trump are doing so because it seems politically expedient to do so.
I suspect that many of them were very isolated and didn't realize the people that they represent. I'm sure most of the folks they deal with are donors, pack organizers, campaign bundlers, lobbyists, and thus they thought their base was something it's not. They've cultivated willfully ignorant, racist, xenophobic, paranoid, religious people who regularly vote against their own self interests and they think Trump will solve all their problems because he's not a politician. People like that aren't going to follow or care about your rational for distancing yourself from Trump. That's your party, your chance to take an idealistic stance has long sailed, and so now they're swimming back to the volcanic island that is Trump, well knowing that that volcano is going to blow and there's little to no chance of survival.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
How do you run to the left of Clinton on social issues, though? Her policy, and that of the general Democratic party these days, is "Leave the bathrooms alone, let them marry, and let them get abortions." In other words, the only way to get further left would be to actually do stuff—like the Equality Act. Like regulations. And libertarians hate that kind of thing.
legalize drugs, end foreign wars, end corporate well fair . . . there's all sorts of libertarian stances that people on the left would agree with to a point.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Well the sport can't be that good if the national anthem was the thing 1/3rd of people were tuning in for.
Trump: 'I Know That Was Pretty Bad, But Let’s Just Say You’re Going To Want To Save Your Energy’ - from The Onion
Doesn't feel like satire at this point.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Ramsey Orta, who filmed death of Eric Garner, sentenced to four years in prison for drugs and weapons charges
Hey someone went to jail for the Eric Garner case.
doc roc wrote:
I'd really rather not populate the world stage with uninformed bungling rank amateurs thank you very much. Also, what the hell is wrong with being middle of the road? I wish there was a middle of the road candidate. Right now the choices are republican and republican EXTREME!!! and not the good kind of extreme, more extremist.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I wonder if they had operatives in the crowd stirring up trouble so they could justify cracking down on protesters.
Rob Ford might have been a drunk but he's never slandered drug dealers. In fact he knew a bunch personally. Also, unlike LePage, Rob Ford might have won reelection had health issues not forced him out of office.
So a child on a bike collides with a car, some people say the kid is at fault, some say the driver. There's also claims that she was knocked unconscious for a bit as well.
The police arrive on the scene and want to ask questions and the girl doesn't want to cooperate. At this moment I have some sympathy for the police, they're just trying to do their jobs and the young woman isn't cooperating, but this sympathy rapidly devolves when they handcuff her and then pepper spray her while in the back of the patrol car.
Let's suppose this happened in a vacuum, absolutely no history or protests against police violence, let's suppose this girl has no preconceived bias against the police. In that world she might seem out of line being so hostile to a police force that has never treated minorities different and have only helped people in her situation. She might have a head injury and so they might want to detain her to ensure she's fine. Perhaps I could understand putting her in cuffs til the paramedics had a chance to look her over, maybe take her to the hospital.
However, even in ideal world, her refusing to get into the back of the car is not sufficient reason for you to pepper spray her. You take five, six, eight, twenty minutes to try to get her to cooperate. If you're really in a hurry she weighs maybe 100lbs, if you can't physically put her in the back of a car maybe you shouldn't be a police officer.
Pepper spray is a weapon, people have died from being pepper sprayed, and it should only be used if there's some kind of threat. A teenager not cooperating with you isn't any kind of threat. This seems to be yet another case of someone refusing to follow an officer's commands and there's no greater crime in America then disrespecting a police officer.
Can I just say that for the most part I think our discussions have been civil. I think most of us are on the same page, but we're quibbling about the small details rather than the big picture. Maybe I'm misreading tone and every comment aimed at me was dripping with bile and venom, but I think most of the talk has been civil. I'm fine with disagreeing with people, so long as we both get our arguments across there's no harm in it. Debate I don't think has ever been about converting your opponent, it's more about getting the chance to hammer out your position as it's been attacked, and point out flaws and weaknesses in your opponents position. If a consensus can be reached that great, but just getting the chance to understand another point of view does wonders for your own position. People can ask questions you've never considered before.
That is of course considering we're having a civil discourse. Sometimes things get heated. A shouting match usually isn't very helpful. If this happens I really recommend taking a few moments before hitting the "submit post" button. I've deleted a lot of posts over the years as I considered if it was worth sending and usually after a moment or two of contemplation making that snarky reply about morality in Pathfinder isn't going to be helpful to the argument. Rumor is some people get even more heated when talking about politics.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
What I'm trying to say is that if he's not called out on his racist, misogynist, fraudulent, lying flip-flopping immediately, if his record and his lies aren't pointed out, if they invite Trump supporters onto their shows to spread more lies and misinformation to defend Trumps position, well then, that gives the notion that there's some debate about his reprehensible actions. The voter gets to think maybe Trump's right. Trump is entirely a monster of the media and if he wins they'll bare most if not all the blame.
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?
Thomas Seitz wrote:
I'm only tangentially participating due to the fact I've decided this election cycle has become a farce that not even Monty Python could make more...farcical.
I for one am not looking forward to another Silly Party sweep.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
I don't understand why democrats get blamed for republican obstructionism or how voting for someone with no chance to win is going to convince them to stop.
IT's because of this false narrative that the news media has where they pretend both sides are equally valid position. It would be like if New York Yankees and the Toronto Blue Jays played a baseball game but then later both sides claimed that they won the baseball game. The news media thinks that's a valid debate.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Can he make this-for-that bargains to get an actual legislative agenda accomplished?He's the king of amendments. He's gotten a lot done with both republicans and democrats.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Can he, in fact, achieve Bismark's "second best"? I don't think so. And I've got even less faith in Mr. Johnson's ability (or desire) to get a progressive agenda through, and still less faith in Ms. Stein's.
But you have faith in Clinton? I got spoilers for you: They HATE her. They've been actively trying to destroy the Clintons for decades. She gets elected you think all that ill will drys up and they decide to follow the will of the people? I don't see them being any less hostile to Clinton then they were to Obama.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
So if I want to get something done -- and I do -- the ability to "take progressive stances" is about as useful as a chocolate tea kettle. And I really don't want a pseudo-leader that will make a lot of noise, take a lot of stances, promise the earth -- and then melt as soon as he/she/they face any political heat.
If you're going into a bargaining table and have two choices on who's going to represent you, tell me who you want: someone who's going to demand as much as they can get or someone who's going to ask for incremental change? Sanders says you should get $24 an hour and Clinton says $10 an hour is more reasonable. Maybe with Clinton you'll get $9 but with Sanders you could get $14. You might never get single payer if Clinton fights for it, but you're sure as hell not going to get it if she doesn't.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
I think this is a fair point. I really dread Trump but regardless of who the next republican president is that seems to be the natural flow of things. The republicans stress fiscal responsibility and small government up until they point they get into office, then the spend like drunken sailors, starting fights all over the place, wreak the place, and then a democrat comes into office to try to clean the place up. Trump just looks like the drunkenest, surliest sailor the republicans have ever given shore leave to, and their last sailor started two wars and crashed the economy.
No, you can plug your nose and vote for Clinton, especially if you feel your state might go to Trump. It becomes hard to vote for her in blue states where she's almost guaranteed to win. Being "Not Trump" at this point is her biggest selling point and there are two other candidates also running on that ticket.
Here's what the opposition does: they fight every change you're looking to make. Back in the 90s you might have worked with the opposition, but you've seen these guys: they have almost no shame. If you go for incremental change they'll resist unless it's something they can get behind. That's what worries me about that.
As for the Court: Garland's a moderate, sure. Picked as someone the Republicans should confirm without problems, because that's the reality when you're dealing with a Senate held by the opposition party. Despite that, he'd still be a drastic shift in the court's balance by all indications. Worst case, he'd be the swing vote instead of Kennedy. That's really a huge change. Kagan and Sotomayor were probably more liberal, but they were also replacing liberal Justices. Garland's replacing Scalia.
Not sure I'd classify Garland as a moderate, he's more of a corporatist, and that makes him a bit to the right of center in my books, but certainly far to the left of Scalia.
Clinton's choices might not be more left leaning than Obama's but they'll certainly be more so than Trump's. Trump does have plenty of experience with judges - he's spent plenty of time in court, being sued and counter suing. He'd likely nominate someone who'd ruled in his favor in the past.
Maybe, before the election Trump was pro-choice, but now that he's running as a republican he's pro-life. I don't doubt that Trump will suggest someone that benefits Donald J Trump but if that's someone to the level of Scalia remains to be seen.
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.