|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Abraham spalding wrote:
I found this article with a quick google search. Not that that list would contain Julian Assange or Edward Snowden as the US hasn't been able to get their claws into them yet, but there's a few names there you probably recognize.
1) I didn't claim that Obama was more left of Clinton, just that his campaign was. In actuality he was a lot more like an extension of Bush when it comes to things like civil liberties, the war on terror, and the persecution of whistle-blowers. He did bring in some change, like some of the changes to health care, albeit using a model that was from a right wing think tank.2) He was far closer to beating Hilary then Ted Cruz was to beating Trump but mysteriously he didn't get much coverage. You'd often have news outlets cutting to an empty Trump podium then broadcasting a Sanders speech. Which kind of plays into the next point:
3) I think what Trump shows is how ill informed republican voters are, they're not all crazy or stupid, but with Trump I think we see what happens with 20 years of people claiming that there's an even debate. Most of this lies clearly at the feet of faux news, but other network news groups are responsible for giving air for debate to things that should never be debated. They have an obsession for pretending that both sides of an argument should be presented. By pretending that some of the right wing talking points have some legitimacy, by not fact checking Trump's speeches, they are responsible for allowing someone like Trump to thrive.
There is a reason I say the democrats are a center-right party
I think they are, especially Hilary, Obama was able to beat her on the left, and Sanders, a man without name recognition, coverage, or money almost beat her doing the same thing. I think most Americans are far more left wing then either party.
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.
Is there a difference between the corporate right and the corporate left?
Male hu-man Paladin
Well I'm not going to spoil anything either, never played through these adventures before, but I have a good memory for lore, plus an adventure path I played though a few years back touched on this particular power late in the adventure path.
Spoilers for my guess at who we're dealing with:
It's Orcus isn't it? I can't think of any other undead demons
Male hu-man Paladin
Okay, I think I have an idea who we're dealing with. Man, OOC knowledge sucks because I seriously doubt Karrin has the experience needed to pull together the clues. I'm sure others probably know who this power is OOC as well . . .
In fairness, stuff like that tends to cherry pick the "worst"/"best" answers from the people they sample, so it shouldn't be taken as representative of the whole, but... yeah.
It's true, but sometimes they don't have to do as much filtering as other times, and this feels like one of those times.
I think where it's safe voting for a 3rd party might be an opportunity to some more voices into the public sphere. I'm not at all hopeful that they'll win but maybe we can get people excited about the mid terms, maybe vote some more Bernie supporters into office, maybe a few greens or even a few libertarians, something to break the gridlock, and maybe next election cycle we have a viable candidate to challenge Hilary or at least pressure her to keep a progressive agenda. I fear that Hilary is going to use Trump's collapse to move back towards the right in hopes of grabbing those disenfranchised republicans.
Reading? No. Actually, I think the briefings are delivered in person - I was reading something earlier about a 'meeting', probably in NYC, where it would happen.
I think it's cute that you think Trump has time to listen to briefings when there are cable news shows on. He doesn't listen to his advisers why would he listen to someone that's not a yes man working for him?
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm pretty tired of neo liberals as well, a side effect of moving so far to the right has been it's driven the republicans to the point of cartoon villainy.
But when we do it it's funny.
Kind of like how aliens only abduct sad lonely midwest types. They know nobody is going to believe an alien is going to travel all the way across the galaxy just to abduct some hick from the middle of nowhere. It's the perfect crime.
Maybe she's so good that she's able to make folks like Alex Jones and Glen Beck seem crazy so people like us chalk up their accusations as crazy conspiracy theories. Bet you never considered that.
Edit: or she leaks the clues to her nefarious deeds to them first so the source of the conspiracy is tainted. Dun dun duuuuuun
This is what I'm wondering. Trump seems to be asking about nukes and people are upset that Hilary might have mishandled a few emails. Priorities people.
I'm pretty sure that Trump considers his "brand" to be a significant part of his net worth, and its value is, basically, whatever he thinks it is... which is why his quotes about his worth fluctuate so much. XD
He values it at 4 billion IIRC
Trump is probably never going to release his tax returns because he's probably a fake billionaire. He claims to be worth 10 billion and in all likelihood he's not even worth 1% of that.
Bernie isn't an outlier, he's only an outlier if you look at him in comparison to the less then 100 people who charge more then $100 000 per speech. That's the big league, most people don't make that much per speech. Those are keynote speakers for major conferences, and while it's true that Hilary is charging less then Larry the Cable Guy, should we elect Larry one might be suspicious of his executive actions aimed at the insurance, plumbing, farm equipment or whatever corporate hell he was paid to speak at where hearing Larry the Cable Guy speak was preferable to putting a gun in your mouth. Perhaps President Guy will avoid partisan politics and "Get er' done" but until that time it seems Ms Clinton is the only one from that circuit currently running for president.
Abraham spalding wrote:
So let me see if I follow your logic here, Clinton isn't paid a lot for her speeches, Bernie was paid a couple thousand, and Clinton's standard fee was 225,000.
$2000 > $225, 000?
Why this is a big deal isn't because of how much money Clinton earned, it's about who she was earning that money from. You may have missed it but there's a strong anti-establishment vibe to this election and that's why people are upset about the speeches. Trump is a sell out, anything for money, but his supporters believe he isn't bought and that's part of his success. In reality if he isn't bought it's because nobody is offering yet because Trump is sure as hell willing to sell. People bring up the speeches because they believe that it shows quid pro quo, and yes, that seems to be the norm for politicians.
Abraham spalding wrote:
How much was Bernie payed for his speeches? Or Trump? I bet they were paid more because they're men right?
In all seriousness, if Trump did give speeches to a bunch of Wall Street bankers that would be the least of his problems. Trump University anyone?
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
I don't know about that last part. I'm sure sexism plays into this, the same way race plays into for Obama, but it's a non factor for me and I don't think there are many people in this thread upset with Hillary because she's female.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
More than half of the voters explicitly supported protest candidates -- Cruz (who is basically the voice of the Tea Party) or Trump -- in other words, "the fringe faction." In other words, the fringe faction was an actual majority of the voters, and it was not supporting any of the establishment candidates like it was supposed to.
I don't think this is just a republican phenomenon ether, there's a massive faction that's upset with the establishment, never mind party affiliation. Trump has gained success by playing the anti-establishment card and it's probably one of his better strategies against Hillary, however Trump really isn't anti-establishment, and his crazy positions have made people wanting change reconsider how much change they really want.
It's not quite as easy as adding up the votes on an extended score board, with fewer candidates people vote differently, similarly with less choices it's not possible to give the votes to someone else. It may well be that Trump would gain all those votes if their were only 5 candidates, I don't think that's the case, but it's entirely possible. I mean I agree with your point, it's very hard to speculate, and of course there's no guarantee that someone else would have been the beneficiary of all those extra votes had there been less choice, but when you have 12 to 30 candidates, there's really no way anyone is going to take the time to research them all, and so name recognition is essential.
Trump changes his mind so often that even someone researching his quotes might find that by the time they've voted he may well have done a 180 on that original position. I don't think Trump ever got anywhere near 50% of the vote in any of those early primaries, name recognition may well have gotten him the 30% he needed to win some of those early contests. The folks researching the candidate that best suited their beliefs were likely the ones spiting the vote.
I'm not sure the racist faction is what won Trump the election necessarily, I mean I accept that it was a factor, but I think low education voters combined with Trump's celebrity is likely what was the larger impact. Early on, with 17 candidates, most people wouldn't know enough about everyone on that list to make an informed decision. People knew Trump's name and that's likely why he did so well.
The fact that they had so many candidates splitting the vote I think was the real reason Trump was able gain such a monstrous lead early. When there's 17 candidates you only need a fringe faction of the party to take a lead, and when you've got a big lead people are happy to vote for a winner. Jeb was weak sauce vs Trump, but had there been only five candidates the plan might have worked and we might have had a Jeb Vs Hilary contest.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Cruz also doesn't get to say the he and he alone refused to back Trump. Kasich can lay claim to that as well, and while he isn't as high profile, that also means he isn't as hated.
Kasich is far more viable then Cruz and he was the last man to fall to Trump.
I think it's likely that people will blame Cruz for the inevitable defeat of Trump, claiming it was a lack of party unity that caused the xenophobic isolationist failed business man to lose the election. Certainly current donors have already said don't look to us for money in 2020, and it's possible that they'll keep their words, some of these big money guys have long memories, and sellout politicians are a dime a dozen. Cruz really doesn't bring anything that special to the table, I'm not sure he's that much of a draw to the Latin community and there's dozens of people that can pretend to religious, heck even Donald Trump is pretending (badly) and that seems to be good enough for the majority. Cruz may have thought that he was setting himself up for a 2020 run but I think he forgot to factor in that one crucial component that could be the monkey wrench in his plans: the fact that nobody likes him.
Oh homeopathy is perfectly safe. It's water. It's not going to hurt you. Not going to help either, of course. But it's perfectly safe. It's not even worth running safety trials on. It's water.
That's just not true, unregulated water can be very dangerous, heck tap water in the US has been shown to be quite dangerous with unacceptable levels of lead and other pollutants and that's supposed to be tested and regulated. The idea behind homeopathy is pure quackery but that doesn't mean we just ignore it and let them sell whatever they want. People should be allowed to access placebo effects if they want, however just because we know it's not actual medicine doesn't mean we let the industry be unregulated. If you're buying St. John's Wort supplements the FDA should be testing those supplements to ensure people are getting what they pay for, and similarly if someone is buying some homeopathy version of some drug we should be insuring that the water is safe for consumption and not from, say, the Cuyahoga river.
Beyond that though, I said she was equivocating on vaccines and homeopathy, not that she was blatantly anti-vaccine.
except the quotes I've had presented to me are not showing an equivocation. She's says vaccines work, have been proven to work, and untested "natural" medicines aren't necessarily safe. The section quoted she's talking about governing bodies and how they may be compromised. She's saying that this could be dangerous but that unregulated "natural" supposed cures like homeopathy aren't safe either. The suggestion that she's saying homeopathy and vaccines are the same is a reach, likely by a writer connected with her political adversaries.
You're reading something into her statements that I'm not seeing. Has she said vaccines don't work? Is she recommending homeopathy? If you have evidence of that by all means post it.
The only answer, as the article stated is that vaccines work and homeopathy is quackery that should be based from being sold as medicine. Full stop. The mess she posted as her reply is full of dog whistles, prevarication and assorted woo.
Vaccines are very safe, not completely safe, and have an effectiveness in the 90% to 100% range. I'm not against vaccines and from what I've read neither is Jill Stein.
From that article Stein seems very much against homeopathy:
"For homeopathy, just because something is untested doesn’t mean it’s safe." and "We need research and licensing boards that are protected from conflicts of interest. They should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is “natural” or not."
Do you think homeopathy is going to stand up to clinical scrutiny?
Her comments seem to be about regulatory bodies being compromised then about her beliefs about vaccines or homeopathy and the author of that article seems to be reaching.
Now there's a clip I found from The Young Turks and while more of a opinion then a news channel they do ask her outright if she believes vaccines cause autism which is one of the things she's been accused of believing.
Abraham spalding wrote:
I'm not asking for people that are completely removed from the field, I'm asking for a body that hasn't worked for companies that they're going to be ruling on, people without close ties (no spouses, or familiar ties), and obviously people without any financial ties to the companies. That doesn't seem that hard does it? People probably know each other, that's fine for reasons you've pointed out, but it seems like there's a bit of a revolving door in the US government where executives from major companies get appointed, make rulings that are somewhat beneficial to their former companies, and then return to that business when their term is up.
I know we need experts in certain fields, and it would be unreasonable to expect them not to return to the private sector when their government job is complete, but it does look suspect and I can sympathies with people that feel the system is corrupt.
Hmm, well if Pfizer has three former executives working for the FDA, and they're reviewing a Pfizer drug, that seems a little questionable to me. The same way I found it questionable when Halliburton won the bid to supply the US military at the start of the Iraq war. It seemed a little suspect that one of their former executives was the Vice President. I realize this is how Washington works and it may be the reason elections have gotten so ugly as of late. There's a lot of money at stake. I just wish there was a way to remove these doubts.
Abraham spalding wrote:
I think we're reading the same thing, though you seem to have a less favorable interpretation of that position. I believe in the effectiveness of vaccines but I have a mistrust of big pharma. There are vaccines that I'd make sure my kids had without a doubt, but is every vaccine effective? Last year's flu shot for example was useless, my parents got it because they're at an age where their doctors recommended them getting it, but I decided to pass because it didn't seem necessary. I'm not against vaccines, I'm glad my parents made sure I got all my shots when I was a kid, but is every vaccine necessary? This is the sort of thing that should be discussed with a doctor and hopefully something that's being studied by an independent and completely disinterested party. Those flu shots didn't cost my parents anything (because they're Canadian) but the province would have had to pay the doctor and buy the shot and if it wasn't effective in combating that year's flu strain it seems to me that wasn't money well spent. In the states you guys might end up paying for that sort of thing out of pocket.
The question as to the safety of vaccines is another matter, and the anti vaccine movement does not have a good reputation, especially those that chose to opt out because of a discredited study by Andrew Wakefield, but I'm not sure the opposite, having complete trust in the medical industry, is particularly smart either. Personally I try to remain open minded and ask my doctor questions (not that he's going to have all the answers) but I try to do my due diligence. We have to trust the trained professionals to some extent though. However having an independent watch group seems to only make sense. Pharmaceuticals have buried studies, payed doctors to put their names on papers, and if someone at the FDA worked for a pharmaceutical, well we know it's big business, and it feels a little shady that they'd be ruling on things from their former company.
Still not seeing anything saying she's anti vaccination or for homeopathy. She's clearly skeptical of the safety, effectiveness or necessity of some vaccines, which could be understandable given the wide range of vaccines produced every year, but that doesn't mean she's on the vaccination causes autism bus.
This is the quote I see from Krensky's link: "vaccines should be treated like any medical procedure–each one needs to be tested and regulated by parties that do not have a financial interest in them" Jill Stein
That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. The writer of that article on the other hand seems to be trying to twist the words to mean something that they don't, calling for oversight on the auto industry from a disinterested party doesn't mean you're against the auto industry, it means you don't want people with a vested interest making rules and regulation for that industry.
Unless I'm missing something it feels like a smear.
Well especially seeing as 3rd party candidates are going to be kept off the debate stage. It's hard for them to do well when they're not allowed to participate. Both Gary and even Jill are polling higher then some of the people allowed to participate at the Republican Debates, so it is a bit sad that with two historically unpopular candidates every step is being made to keep 3rd party candidates out of the debates. It's unlikely that they'd be able to make up the ground at this point even if they were welcomed to the debate but the two major national parties aren't taking any chances.
This could be the year of the 3rd party making big in roads, I could never vote for Trump, but if I'm a republican maybe I pick Gary Johnson, if I'm in a blue state I might vote for Jill Stein. If the poling is close though I'd probably vote for Clinton. I was rooting for Bernie Sanders and I'm not a fan of Clinton but I can't call myself a Bernie or bust guy as, if the Republicans hadn't nominated the Id of Faux News, I might say lets have four years of republican rule so we can vote them out in 2020, but Trump is Faux new's Frankenstein's monster so I can't in good contious do anything that might allow him to win. I can only hope he suffers the worst defeat in US history. I want him to come in 4th in states that have Jill Stein and Gary Johnson on the ticket.
I think that's a great point. If Clinton has already appointed her judges what exactly are the 2nd amendment people going to do that in Trumps own words "That'll be a horrible day"
So Trump seems to be continuing this narrative that the election is rigged and that the Clinton people will "steal" the presidency. I thought the Daily Show did a rather funny piece regarding gerrymandering and voter ID laws to show how the elections are actually rigged (but in Trump's favor) but I do find this a bit troublesome as it feels like he's pushing for some violent finish to the elections. He's not polling well right now, it's always felt like he was unlikely to win, and so calling for 2nd amendment people to do something is kind of scary. Some of his supporters don't seem particularly stable.