|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Waiting for the bomb shells. Not really as bad as being an actual segregationist or voting for the Iraq war. Any lackluster appeal he may have had with the African American community probably boils down to public knowledge. Everyone has heard of Clinton and Trump, who knows Sanders? People know him now but when he entered the race he was known in Vermont and known in Washington and probably no where else. Maybe Bernie should have gotten into the race sooner, done more work in the South, but I very much doubt Bernie got into the race thinking he could win, rather he was more interested in shifting policy to the left, and it wasn't till about the halfway point that he probably started to realize that he actually had a shot.
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.
he lost the popular vote. Why is no one pointing this out?
I did, earlier today.
Trump currently has 47% of the popular vote, Hillary has 48, and so 53% of voters were against Trump.
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.
Well I don't think the next four years are going to good, I didn't think they'd be great with Hillary, but I shudder to think how potentially bad they'll be under Trump. There are a few hopes coming out of this though, maybe the democrats will return to the left, with a progressive leader like Sanders or Warren leading the charge in 2020. Maybe Trump will continue to destroy the republican party from the inside out as once he starts to govern more republicans will step up to oppose him. Hopefully there will be a backlash against the religious right as church leaders who tied themselves to Trump share the blame for the potentially disastrous presidency.
Hopefully the ignorant won't pay too great a price for their choices tonight. I suspect though that the people who voted for Trump are going to be those bearing the greatest burden.
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?
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Kind of sad considering that the European Union was an answer to isolationism and nationalism that lead to two world wars. We could see a world as divided as ever setting the stage for the final world war.
And so how do you think Trump is going to fix that with his plans to take in less money?
I doubt they're losing anything, not making the projected profits is a more likely scenario. While single payer would be the best solution, the current system could be rectified with the public option, that is a insurance policy set up by the government at a competitive fixed rate.
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.
Male hu-man Paladin
To be fair, I'm sure speaking halfling would only be useful in a buffet setting. It would be nice to know all the uses for potatoes and what thridsies and second breakfast is. Surprising that Karrin doesn't speak halfling now that I think about it.
Tomorrow is the official start of the 2020 election cycle.
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."
Norman Osborne wrote:
Well that's embarrassing. We live in an age with google you know. It's not hard to research things. If it comes from a republican source that's usually the safest thing to do (not that any news source is particularly good these days) but republican sites are getting desperate right before the election.
It's worth noting, well we are on the verge of a possible Trump defeat, that most terrorist attacks in the US were carried out by anti-government groups or white supremacists. You know, the people likely supporting Trump? The ones that have been told that the election is rigged? I mean regular run of the mill mass shootings dwarf terror attacks already in the US, so if you're concerned about terrorism, whilst ignoring the elephant in the room, you're already seeming a bit dubious in your logic and reasoning (you're more likely to be killed by someone going on a shooting rampage because his wife left him then a planned terrorist attack), but even if you're concerned about terrorism there are far more whites in the country and so naturally there's way more terrorist acts committed by them. Basically Islamic terrorism is not a huge threat, nor is it particularly wide spread, and people claiming it is are trying to scare you to make an uninformed rash decision.
As far as refugees, like the Syrians, they're not a particularly high risk group. If someone is looking to get into the US for terrorist attacks entering into the refugee system is not only not a sure fire way to get into the West, never mind America, but it's a very very lengthy process. While a few (maybe a dozen) of the 750 000 refugees settled in the US since 9/11 have been arrested or removed from the country due to terrorist concerns, the majority of those were concerning plots outside of America. To my knowledge only one has been arrested for plotting attacks within the US. None of them have actually successfully committed terrorist attacks.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Seems likely, and then he'll have a private sector consultant job, maybe on faux news,
Personally the Wiki Leaks email leaks really haven't changed my opinion of Clinton, I don't see any bomb shells in there for me, but some folks who might have had a more idealistic view of the former Secretary of State might be shocked and horrified. All that's happened thus far from my point of view is my suspicions have been confirmed. I'd say she's a better candidate then Trump. However that's not a particularly high bar to cross as I think Gary Johnson is also a better candidate then Trump.
James Comey, former second in command under John Ashcroft, may well have been following the letter of the law when he informed congress that he was looking at Hilary's emails but I have my doubts. If Trump doesn't win I have to think his tenure as head of the FBI may be coming to a close.
You think Trump was colluding with the RNC or Bernie was getting debate questions ahead of time? Clinton is an insider and that's the advantage insiders get. I don't think there's any surprises in these emails, anyone following politics realized this fairly early, but it is in contrast to the narrative that the media has been running.
Don't get me wrong the smears and slander leveled against her doesn't help her, but I think by this point the only people willing to grab their pitchforks and torches every time the right cries wolf were unlikely to vote for her in the first place. Even before the campaign started the majority of people had already made up their mind on Clinton. The majority of people have made their mind up about Trump. What they're fighting over are the sliver of undecided voters and so anything, like claims that the FBI is reopening a criminal investigation could sway the election, much like the Trump bragging about groping did a week before.
She's smarter then Trump, willing to actually put in the work, but she's also representing the status quo, and I think that may be her biggest weakness. There are a lot of people hurting out there, Bernie and Trump are both evidence of that groundswell, and her biggest problem is her inability to motivate people. She's still on the "Not Trump" ticket. In my opinion there's a better candidate on that ticket. Meanwhile Trump maybe stupid and dangerous, but he's certainly capable of rallying people up, and if it comes down to who can excite the electorate things don't look good for Clinton.
He's a far worse human being, has horrible policies, but there's some question as two how much he can actually accomplish. Clinton may be able to deliver some really devastating right wing policies, things democrats would fight tooth and nail against if Trump proposed them, and that might make her worse because she's splitting the natural opposition.
I couldn't care less about the majority of the b@+*#%~+ made up scandals that have surrounded the Clintons, the Benghazi thing for example, and even this email thing for the most part is stupid. What isn't b!%%~+!$ is the evidence pointing to things we already suspected, collusion in the DNC, collusion within the press, even hints that Clinton was working with her super packs (which in theory is illegal, though no one is ever going to be charged with anything because the comity that oversees these things is split along party lines), that stuff isn't bull, and in another year against a reasonable opponent, it should sink her campaign and cause the DNC to reform itself. This isn't a normal election though.
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.
Someone should start a criminal mastermind Hilary Clinton meme where her magical, time traveling, mind controlling powers are explained. For example:
In 2008 the Hillary Clinton campaign started the Birther movement in 2004.
It's criminal assault and it is disgusting. Sorry, but there is no excuse for that behaviour.
Of course you can justify spitting on someone, don't be silly, they can justify shooting people. The question is was it justified in this case?
Also, it doesn't matter who did it. A member of TYT did it while on duty. Every employee of a company must act as their representative. If their superiours take no action to correct them, then they accept that image upon the company. Therefore, TYT approves of spitting in people's faces which is, again, assault.
This also seems a fairly ridiculous position. You can disapprove of someone's actions without correcting them. The police work on this assumption all the time and I'd think we shouldn't be holding a reaction based web show to a higher standard then the police. People with real power.
Then there was the hypocrisy of Ana Kasparian where, for quite some time, she has been actively opposed to body and fat shaming. Then she goes and does it to Alex Jones.
Because when an atheist says "oh my god" when frustrated they're being hypocrites and not simply using common vernacular in situations where they've been conditioned to use them. Someone gets me mad enough I might call them a son of a b@##+, but that doesn't mean I actually mean to insult their mother, most likely I've never met their mother, but it's a common expression and I might use it when I'm mad.
I despise Alex Jones but come on, that was a terribly unprofessional attitude they had. They should have acted better than him, rather than sink to his level.
I do agree with this. I said so when it happened.
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was set up by both organizations to get more views.
That would surprise me, I don't think the people at TyT are that good at acting, this does however seem to be what Alex Jones was interested in doing. He wanted a reaction and he got one.
TYT isn't even News. It is News reaction. At times, they are also as bad as Fox News for how one sided their opinions tend to be and how they twist stories.
I usually use them to supplement my intake of US news. I'm not sure I'd classify them as bad as Faux, they tend to be as critical of the democrats as they are of the republicans, but they are more of a react channel then a news channel but they are changing that somewhat with some of their newer hires.
It somewhat makes me glad to live in Canada. I believe the law up here is that you can not say your broadcast is News unless it is actually factual and News. It's sort of why Fox News was rejected from opening a Canadian division and Sun News got shut down.
Well we have tighter regulations, there's always going to be bias, it's kind of unavoidable, but I think the news media here isn't being directed as it appears to be in the states.
I can't watch the young turks anymore. While Alex Jones is a disgusting lunatic that thinks reptilians are a real thing, TYT staff went too far in literally spitting in his face.
Hey that was Jimmy Dore, great spit take by the way, and if you invade someone's live broadcast, bring along Roger Stone, being spat on is really the least thing you should expect. It's not something that I'd approve off normally, it's not something I'd do for example in the same situation, it's not how I expect civilized people to act, but it wasn't a normal situation and Alex isn't exactly civilized. He was looking to stir something up. He got what he was looking for.
The right is fueled by outrage, if he can't generate outrage then he's not much use is he? I don't know, I just don't think he's got the staying power of a Rush or a Hanity. Heck even Beck might be done soon.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Quid pro quo. O'Keefe is an aspiring muckraker but doesn't meet the journalistic standards or credibility to claim the term himself. He's more of an independent artist, using edited footage to construct a narrative that fits with the ideas of his supporters and donors. Course the moment he stops getting news with his art is the moment the money dries up. I haven't seen too much press with this latest fiction piece so that money might be drying up soon (along with any of his credibility).
captain yesterday wrote:
Maybe they're mistaking him for Gary Johnson? With a comment like that it would be hard to separate the two.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
She was black and had mental issues, that's two of the top demographics to be shot by the police. Throw in the fact that she had a baseball bat and that poor lady didn't stand a chance.
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.
Male hu-man Paladin
Patrick Curtin wrote:
Wow! Time really flies!
Also a long time to go without a level <hint hint> :)