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

NPC Dave's page

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber. 627 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:

The rules for counting absentee ballots do not have exceptions for "so many other ballots have already been counted that these votes are irrelevant"

Those ballots were all counted by Dec 5, 2000

Aides to Jones said they expect most of the absentee and provisional ballots to be counted in the next week. Legally, counties have until Dec. 5 to present final tallies.

All of the votes counted by Dec 5th were indeed counted, but not all the votes cast for President were actually counted.

CrystalSeas wrote:

How about this

Are absentee ballots counted?

from these folks Vote.org

Vote.org are not election officials, they are a private organization and don’t make or enforce election law.

Irontruth wrote:
Just curious, can you link me a state statue that says absentee ballots don't have to be counted if there aren't enough to sway the election?

To answer your question...

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I don't know the rules in all the states, but California moved to close this gap in a proposition in 2001 and voted upon in 2002 called Proposition 43.

In it, they mandate that all votes count as long as they are done legally.

This includes absentee votes.

Many saw it as an effort to stop the same thing from happening in California as happened in Florida.

Whether this idea is true for all states, I don't know presently. In many ways, it could be that the traditional way of absentee which is accepted by many is no longer in effect and all states have taken a similar approach.

Every Vote counts in California proposition 43

We will start with the California law-

1. The Law Prior to Proposition 43
California law provides that a United States citizen of at least 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote. Cal. Const. art. II, § 2. California law also provides that the Legislature shall define residence and provide for registration and free elections. Cal. Const. art. II, § 3. However, while the California Constitution recognizes the right to vote if certain conditions are met, neither the United States Constitution nor the California Constitution expressly guarantee that those votes will be counted.

Specifically, this measure provides that if a post-election deadline imposed by the Elections Code prevents the proper tabulation or recounting of ballots, the county elections official may petition the superior court for an extension of that deadline sufficient to permit the tabulation or recounting of ballots. (Id.) The court may grant the petition if it finds that the time limitation would prevent the counting of all votes as required by the proposed amendments to the Constitution. (Id.)

Proposition 43 purports to create voter confidence in California elections by assuring California voters that their vote will not be bypassed due to time constraints and statutory deadlines. (Id.) Proposition 43 gives the process of counting ballots a higher degree of importance than other statutory deadlines and obligations.

Simply put, California proposition 43 was a measure to put higher priority to vote counting, which is a legal requirement, than vote reporting deadlines, which is another legal requirement.

The passing of that proposition, in and of itself, backs up what I initially said…that some votes are not counted because they don’t matter, for the additional specified reason which I did not mention…because of time constraints and to meet statutory deadlines.

Does every state have something like California’s Prop 43? No they don’t.

Moving on to the federal government…

In practice, elections for local, state, and federal office are conducted primarily by local election officials in the nation's counties, parishes, and independent cities or townships. These local election officials, in most states, exercise broad authority. Despite their relative autonomy, these local election officials are bound by their respective state statutes regarding the conduct of elections. These statutes include the manner in which votes are to be counted. At a minimum, the county’s obligation to count and report the vote accurately, and in an objective and impartial manner, is implicit if not explicit in law.

Note the key word accurately.

Definition

1) free from error especially as the result of care 2) conforming exactly to truth or to a standard 3) able to give an accurate result

Local election officials have “broad authority” and “relative autonomy”. The count and report of the vote must be accurate.

But the word missing from the federal government’s page that would incorporate counting every last vote even when it doesn’t matter is the word precise.

Definition

1) exactly or sharply defined or stated 2) minutely exact

A precise count is also an accurate count, but an accurate count is not necessarily a precise count.

The bottom line is, local election officials cut corners when it doesn’t matter. The vote has to be accurate, it doesn’t have to be precise. Although I will concede California has an explicit incentive to prioritize counting every last vote this year than it did in 2000, so Hillary and Donald’s California vote totals are going to be much more precise than the California totals in 2000.

If the popular vote for the Presidential election actually mattered, then the count for it would have to be precise. Since it doesn't matter, the popular vote is just accurate enough for each state to be correct for assigning those electors to a candidate. No one is checking up on local election officials to make sure their popular vote counts are precise.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
CrystalSeas wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


You don't have to count it in situations where, for your area, the absentee ballots would not overcome what the results already show.

No. Not at all true.

There is no jurisdiction in this country where it is legal to not count absentee votes, no matter what informal numbers show.

This is absolutely not true. While some states may have something more strict, in general the law requires that absentee votes must be counted, unless and until they no longer have any possibility to sway the outcome.

So if one candidate is ahead in a state by 20,000 votes, and there are 19,500 absentee votes yet to be counted...those 19,500 votes are not counted and added to the Presidential total. It won't matter.

I know for a fact that in 2000, when Al Gore lost to Bush 43 in the electoral college but was ahead in the popular vote by 500,000, there were two million uncounted absentee ballots in California alone. It didn't matter, because Al Gore was ahead by more than 2 million votes in CA. He had locked up those delegates.

The ironic thing is that historically, absentee ballots break 2 to 1 for Republican, so if someone had insisted on counting those 2 million absentee ballots for the Presidential election, Gore's lead would have likely evaporated.

So it isn't even true that Hillary Clinton "won" the popular vote. Instead she is leading the popular vote with millions of votes that were set aside and not counted, and if they had to be counted we may or may not yet know who won the popular vote.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
The Norv wrote:


I know this was a while ago, but I just have to point out: many of the Founding Fathers were major landowners in their states and wanted to make sure that they would have a significant say in how they ran their lives/land/businesses.

Really, why SHOULD it matter what the majority of the (empty of human inhabitants) landmass of the United States decides rather than what the majority of living human beings who have hopes, fears, and dreams decides?

Because the hopes, fears and dreams of the masses living in cities in California, Illinois and New York are not the hopes, fears and dreams of people living in rural Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa.

Those people living in those empty landmasses will never have any effect on who will be President without the electoral college. But this time, in this situation, their voice was heard.

Quote:
Again, small states get representation (and as we've seen, overrepresentation by population) in the Congress. In a winner-take-all situation like the presidency, I'd prefer we bow to the will of the PEOPLE, not the will of the LAND.

Yes, they do get representation in Congress, but with the electoral college, they also get some opportunities for a President who reflects and represents their views as well.

That is how it should be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

When one candidate complains that the system is rigged...

Both candidates claimed the election was rigged.

They just couldn't agree on who was rigging it and in whose favor.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

The Electoral College is a very effective and productive institution for keeping large majorities in a few states from gaining excessive influence in the outcome of Presidential elections.

The poor rural whites that Democrats and the journalist class abandoned in Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Ohio had their voices heard this election rather than seeing their voices drowned out by California's swelling immigrant population.

It also prevents the temptation of states gaming the system by lowering the voting age in a close election to try and stack the deck. Lowering the voting age in a red or blue state doesn't help a candidate since it doesn't affect the number of electoral votes that candidate receives.

So I will fight just as hard to keep the Electoral College preserved as I fought to see Donald Trump elected.

But I completely agree that this winner take all nonsense has to stop. Anyone who pushes to have their state assign electoral vote by district rather than by state has my support. Places like Pennsylvania and Florida are divided in half, so let each district decide for itself and the two parties can split a state's electoral votes rather than one party come so close and get nothing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Knight who says Meh wrote:
This is what he means.

No, this is what I mean.

With the election ending tomorrow(presumably), I am not planning on any more detailed replies going forward, since I won’t have time to answer it until later in the week when such questions and answers will lose urgency and relevancy. But I will keep my promise and post acknowledgements for anyone who wants to call me out with an end zone post-touchdown celebration that the NFL likes to penalize, and I promise to be a good sport about it even if Trump loses.

And for all you Trump supporters out there, be sure to thank Trump for working and competing so hard this election season. I will be sending my thank you tomorrow.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Coriat wrote:

Taxes): It seems we've mostly reached agreement that overall Trump is putting pro-rich stuff on the table here. I have a little more discussion about details, though.

Estate taxes - I think there's an error of fact here, about the upper middle class paying estate taxes. The estate tax cutoff is about $5 million individual or $10 million couple. Net worth by wealth percentile. "Top 1%" and "people rich enough to worry about estate taxes" don't exactly overlap (it might be top 1.5%?), and I'm not sure I totally understand the details, but it seems close enough for my lights.
Second, even if they currently have ways available to lessen or even dodge their estate tax liability, completely scrapping it is still a pro-rich move, and really nothing but a pro-rich move. Even the very article you linked about how the Waltons found ways around the estate tax also said that they were funding efforts to repeal it (I'm sure they would like to be free of the restrictions and trust limitations involved in getting around it).

Actually I argue the opposite. Estate taxes benefit the 1%. More specifically, it benefits the top 20% of the 1%, who use the estate tax to deprive those in the range of 1.01-1.5% of their source of wealth, along with any of the bottom 80% of the 1% who were dumb or unlucky enough to fail to protect themselves from the estate tax.

To explain, when someone has something of value, whether it is a brand or a business or a priceless collectible, and then estate tax has to be paid, the government gets half the value. So the item of value has to be sold so the tax can be paid. Why buys the item of value? The top 20% of the 1%...either directly, or through corporations. I have watched Warren Buffet accumulate many brands and businesses this way, no man has benefited from the estate tax more than Warren Buffet.

Corporations benefit immensely from estate taxes. They don’t die, so they never have to pay estate taxes. That means they have an enormous advantage over businesses with an owner who will die. The proprietorship has to lose half its value(assuming 50% estate tax) each time the owner dies. The equivalent to the estate tax in the National Football League would be the following rule:

In any cross-conference match up between an AFC team and an NFC team, at halftime the AFC team shall deduct half the points it has scored in the first half from its total, and of those points forfeited, half again shall be awarded to the NFC team and added to its total. Play out the rest of the game as normal.

How long would it take for an AFC team to win the Super Bowl under those rule conditions? A long time, maybe never.

So if you are going to insist cutting corporate taxes benefits the 1% because it benefits corporations, then you have to also insist that keeping the estate tax benefits the 1% because that also benefits corporations. Logically speaking, you can’t have it any other way.

So Donald Trump getting rid of the estate tax is not a pro-rich move, it is just the opposite. It is a pro-middle class move. The only way to change that is if you make corporations pay estate tax every forty to fifty years or so.

I have been against the estate tax my entire adult life, precisely because it benefits the 1%.

Quote:

2) Some Google research suggests you might be working off bad information re: Wall street giving numbers. I'm not sure what the source for your numbers is, but I think it'd be worth you giving it a second look.

Old news, but it's nowhere near the above numbers.
In fact, I found reporting on a single fundraising dinner for Trump from Wall Streeters that raised more than that.
I found a second (later) WSJ article that stated numbers in the low thousands despite the first article's much larger numbers. Since the amount of money he's raised can't go down over time, it makes me think that there may be some creative accounting going on here. For instance, funneling Wall Street donations to an affiliated organization (such as a super PAC) so that they don't show up direct on the campaign's books. Maybe the first article was reporting on total pro-Trump donations and the second is reporting on an organization-specific line item.
I'm not sure what to make of it, except to think that it may be a case of lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I'd be willing to accept that Clinton has an advantage (although not that it is necessarily tied to bailout support - I'd probably link it most of all to Wall Street fears of a trade war, which means it should fall under issue 1). But it doesn't seem like those numbers are plausible. Depending on where you got them, it might be a case of a bogus source. Or possibly a real source credulously reporting statistics that were massaged further up the chain.
God knows there's a lot of ways to hide where political money comes from these days.

My source is the article I linked to before. Here is the link again.

And here is the paragraph which appears at the bottom…
Securities and investment firms have poured nearly $65 million into her campaign coffers, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Goldman Sachs employees have donated $284,816 to Clinton and just $3,641 to Trump, who has received $716,407 from Wall Street.

Quote:

Subsequent closer reading indicates this is exactly what's happening.

Article from June that I linked earlier but didn't read closely enough until now wrote:
That is set to change. In recent weeks, Wall Street has emerged as a top source of cash to Mr. Trump’s campaign, donating at least $10 million this month to his joint fund with the Republican National Committee. Of that, a fraction will be transferred directly to his campaign because of federal donation limits.
In other words, Wall Street millions did head his way and were spent to elect him (even if not as many millions as Clinton, I'm not sure), but the source of the money can be obscured via accounting since one line item can be kept low (and pointed to) while the money actually flows into a different line item.

Now your article and mine are actually in agreement. Although $10 million was given to Trump, most of it went to the RNC.

And the RNC refuses to spend it on Trump.

The RNC is funneling the money to their Senate candidates and other races. They don’t want Trump to win. They want a wounded Hillary while they keep control of their own party. That is how $10 million went to Trump and the RNC but Trump was left with $716K.

Quote:

3) Hey, I thought you said you were going to try to take off the rose-tinted glasses! :p That list sure isn't!

I mean, you're saying stuff like "pulling money out of departments that have too much (like the Pentagon) and giving it to other departments."
Non-rose-tinted Trump isn't on the same page at all: Trump calls for massive military buildup.
Taking something that the candidate has said he wants to do, and replacing them with something very different that you'd want him to do, and proposing he could do that as a reason to support him... that's nothing but rose.

You misunderstood the final four paragraphs of my reply to you, so I am going to quote them again, this time emphasizing the conditionals in bold.

Quote:

So, to be fair, I need to come up with a substitute for what Trump can do to show he is on the side of Ordinary Joe Schmoes when he gets in office, and how he can get their input. What he has to do is keep his direct social media channels open with his voters, and keep them involved with his legislative initiatives. Now the President can’t legislate, he can only ask Congress to pass laws. So Trump will have to use his communication channels to get the people to lobby their congressional representatives for his legislative agenda. Those in Congress who give him a hard time will need to have their feet held to the fire. One thing true for all politicians, “when they feel the heat, they see the light.” First said by a very effective lobbyist.

And this also gives Trump feedback on what people really want. If he can’t get them pushing hard against their own congress rep, then that isn’t the law he should be pushing to have enacted. Congress can affect those entrenched bureaucrats, with budget cuts. Pulling money out of departments that have too much(like the Pentagon) and giving it to other departments will enable Trump to get the bureaucrats fighting for him instead of against him. If the Pentagon loses budget dollars to the National Park Service, those NPS bureaucrats will fight more savagely than Navy Seals to preserve their bigger budget even after Trump leaves office.

So that is what Trump has to set up and implement to show he is going to listen to Ordinary Joe Schmoes, if he wins. If he doesn’t do that, his presidency will likely end in failure. And if the voters lose interest, which is actually likely considering most Americans only like to get hyped up about politics once every four years, then Trump will still likely fail. He can’t succeed in office without the people who put him there continuing to help him succeed.

Is he going to actually do this? No idea, but that is how he can keep the promise he makes in that ad.

So to be clear,

1) This is my idea, not Trump’s. He has given no indication he would do this. It is entirely possible he doesn’t understand he has to do this.
2) This was my postulation in how Trump can actually realistically change the system if he wins. This was in contrast to your suggestion that the right cabinet appointees are how Trump can change the system.
3) The Pentagon losing budget dollars is purely a hypothetical example of how this postulation would work in practice. I used it because it has too much money IMO. I wasn’t coming up with anything else at the moment I wrote that so I went with it.
4) I thought my conditionals “like” and “if” would make it clear I was talking about hypotheticals, along with my disclaimer at the end that I had no idea if Trump would implement these hypotheticals.
5) I figured it would also be obvious this was an example since I included increasing the budget of the National Park Service, a department that almost never enters into a national election.

Does that make it clear I was in no way claiming that Trump wants to actually move money from the Pentagon to the National Park Service?

But lesson learned, I need to keep my hypothetical examples in line with Trump’s positions in order to avoid confusion. So let’s reverse it. Trump can’t realistically increase the size of the Pentagon’s budget, unless he follows a protocol like the one I suggested. He has to move money from one department budget to another. The ability of the government to increase revenue through taxation and borrowing is becoming more limited due to the size of the deficits and interest payments on the debt. So if he wants to take money from the NPS(example only) and move it to the Pentagon, he has to get Congress to work with him.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
”BigNorseWolf” wrote:
There's the idea of it. You are not rules lawyering Donald Trump into a financial genius

That’s true. There is no need for me to claim he is a financial genius.

Quote:
or accusing others of bait and switch because you picked a definition that didn't have the EXACT term that someone else used

I am clearing up the confusion you guys have between what a businessman is and what an investor is. I am using standard English language definitions.

Quote:

even when YOUR OWN SOURCE has the idea there as plain as day.

Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987
Plugging that into a compound interest calculator shows that thats a 4% compound interest rate per year, which is terrible. Almost putting your money in the bank level bad.

Thank you for volunteering to do the math.

Now let’s try it again, but this time take into account the $916 million dollar loss suffered by Trump in 1995. So how about we calculate the compound interest rate per year for…

1) 1987-1994
2) 1995 (We know the negative compound interest rate for this year is going to be yuuuuuuuge).
3) 1996-2016

Those three rates should shed some light on how well Donald Trump does in a typical year.

Devon Northwood wrote:

Then what is a sucessful businessman for you? What are YOUR criteria?

Look, we can play the word-game all day long, but the fact of the matter is that everybody here knows what is meant. So since you do not accept my way of qualifying a good businessman, what is yours? Because it is your side that put the whole point on the agenda. Trump is the one who started the whole "sucessfull businessman"-meme.

What you refer to as word games is what Aristotle referred to as rhetoric. Dialectic argument is when we use logic and reason, facts and evidence, to come to conclusions. Rhetoric is when we use language and memes, if you will, to appeal to emotions to sway an audience one way or another. Arguing that Trump isn’t a good businessman because he should really have $9 billion instead of $4 billion is weak rhetoric. It is just a couple of steps above Irontruth’s kindergartner trolling comment.

The reason your argument is weak rhetoric is because well before you reach $1 billion you are talking about an absurd and unrealistic amount of money that most people can’t even wrap their heads around. Multiplying that absurd and unrealistic amount of money by 4 or 9 really doesn’t matter.

You may as well claim Tom Brady isn’t a great quarterback because he lost two Super Bowls.

If I had argued Donald Trump was a successful businessman, or a great businessman, or a terrific businessman, I would have already provided supporting arguments to that effect. I never claimed anything about how good or bad a businessman Donald Trump is. In contrast, Donald Trump does make such claims, because he loves rhetoric, and because when some 23 year old journalism major writing for a pittance claims Trump isn’t as rich as he should be, that journalist is only preaching to those who are already against Trump. All Trump has to do to counteract that rhetoric for his supporters and neutral parties is tweet a selfie from inside his personal jet.

I prefer dialectic argument myself, which is why, in the context of Donald Trump being a businessman, I stated that it is largely IRRELEVANT because the skill set for being President is different. Managing bureaucrats is a different skill set than managing people in private industry. Different outlook, different motivations, different perspective.

That is why I didn’t really respond to the initial reply about how terrible Donald Trump is at business other than to ask the question if it is Donald Trump’s fault he doesn’t have more money. And when you jumped in to say yes, I decided to fight the rhetorical fire with more rhetorical fire. All of your argument really just comes down to… Donald Trump could have had more money if he had been somebody else. Sure…and Eli Manning could have won more Super Bowls if he had been Tom Brady.

Quote:

The fact that you are talking about the financial side of the last few elections without talking about dark money and SUPER-PACs shows to me that you have not fully understood what the point of campaign finance reform is. See, you talk about Hillary Clinton being financed by Wall Street, and ... maybe she is. Maybe not. We. Don't. Know.

And the reason we don't know is Citizens United, something that Trump does not want to change. Indeed, as was pointed out before, his plattform is to double down on dark money and preventing transperancy in campain finances. How is that a good thing? How is the fact that social media helps you get elected, a trend starting with Obamas 2008 run, change the existence of dark money?

It reduces the influence of dark money by opening communication channels directly to the voter. Money is used to pay to get your message out. That cost is decreasing. Obama had the journalist class on his side as well as social media. Trump had the journalist class against him since he clinced the Republican nomination, and he is still close. That is how much more power social media has than it did eight years ago.

Quote:
”NPC Dave” wrote:
Donald Trump has permanently burned his bridges with the global elite and with the political establishment. They will never stop hating him for what he has done.
What does that even mean?

It means that if Trump gets elected, the people have an ally working for them in the Oval Office, instead of a billionaire flunky.

Quote:

So, he was a bully towards Jeb Bush. Does that change the fact that the Bush-family pays less taxes proportially then a cleaning lady? You might as well throw tomatoes at H.W. and tell yourself that he will never get the red stain out of his clothes, but that would not chance the SYSTEM. Tomorrow, there will be new rich men with new clothes.

Donald Trump has promised many things, but that is the entire point: He has not delivered. He wants to build a wall, yet he does not tell us how.

Not true, he already did.

Quote:
He wants to fight crime, but he does not let us see his "secret plan, from an anonymus police officer". What you are telling us is entirely what you WANT him to do. As Coriat already said: You tell us that he will pull money away from the military,

I did not tell you guys that. I will correct that misunderstanding in my next post.

Quote:
he says that he will give them more. Even if you believe that the rich don't pay taxes, why does he fight that problem by decreasing taxes for the rich? When people get away with crime, the answer is not "well, let's make crime legal".

What happened to George Bush 41 is not throwing tomatoes and ruining his suit, because he can just buy a new suit, whether he gets a tax cut or not. The historical legacy that Donald Trump deprived GB 41 from acquiring was unique and priceless.

But getting back to taxes, Trump is cutting taxes for everyone who pays taxes. What I have learned from these discussions is that a lot of you guys focus on the tax rate the 1% pay instead of looking at the bigger picture of just how much the 1% gain or lose if they no longer have access to the government trough. This is actually useful to know for the next guy who tries to do what Trump is doing. Should he offer a tax cut but leave the tax rate of the 1% alone, or raise it slightly, he might actually win some of you guys over.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Like many, the poster seems to ignore the free advertising and constant publicity that the media empires showered upon, nay fawned upon Trump, was easily worth more than a billion dollars of advertising.

Not true, I addressed it in a post two Fridays ago when you raised that objection the first time…

Exactly, they do it because Trump means ratings. That is how Trump accomplished the impossible feat of campaign finance reform without passing a law. He built up his brand and built a political message into the entertainment he provided. The media had no choice but to give him that publicity, their ratings would dive if he wasn’t on the screen.
You don’t get people to watch and listen to you without earning their attention. Trump earned their attention, he earned those ratings, and he earned that publicity.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
And yeah, he has his own billionaire backers too.

I already addressed that issue as well…

That Donald Trump is going to stick it to the billionaires after the election could very well be my hallucination. I could be wrong.
I will still support him, first and foremost, because, as you said, most of the other billionaires agree with me, whether it is a hallucination or not. If it is an illusion, it still makes Trump a thorn in their side for the duration of the election, and I like to see my enemies squirm. And, of course, Trump hitting the Bezos, Bush, and Koch families aren’t illusions, those hits are real, even if it will stop after the election.
For the record though, Peter Thiel is a billionaire who provides seed money to the company Legalist, which is an exciting idea that can help Ordinary Joe Schmoes fund their lawsuits when they have a legitimate claim against a big corp. Someone like Roger Kearns would have greatly benefited from Legalist. So Peter Thiel sees things my way, whether it is an illusion or not. I don’t know enough about the others to say, except that Adelson has always made Israel his top priority.

In fact, Peter Thiel backed up everything I said about him less than 12 hours after I said it at the National Press Club.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Spastic Puma wrote:

You're right! You don't need a billion dollars! You just need a fleet of your own private jets and a hotel empire you can stay at. For free! Oh, wait -- not for free. For profit!

Yeah, I really don't see where you're going with this. If your point is, "Hilary has spent more" than yeah, that's apparent to anyone. But my issue with your posts is that you are ignoring the context of the way he has run his campaign (and more importantly) how he came to be a public figure in the first place. His "free" media coverage stemmed from his celebrity status (a trait that isn't something you can simply acquire on a political track)

He has shown how anyone can acquire it. By building up their name and brand through social media outlets. The cost of doing this is only going to decline. The difficulty of doing it is quite large, but those people who have a message that resonates with a large audience are going to be able to do it.

Quote:

and by continually shocking the public with how bigoted he could be (a trait NO politician should ever have). No matter how you look at it, Donald Trump IS NOT suitable poster child for grass roots campaigning on any level.

So if your point is that Trump has proven that you don't have to look to billionaires to fund your campaign (even though they did) anymore, that point comes with a major limitation: You just have to be one.

It wasn’t Trump flying in his own jets and staying in his own hotels for profit that won him the Republican primaries. Looking back, it is obvious he had this planned for a number of years. What enabled him to win started with the following words-

Make America Great Again

Anyone could have come up with that slogan. It didn’t take a billion dollars to come up with it. The right rhetoric and a big enough audience is what you need. But it just happened to be a billionaire who used it, and it touched a chord across America. Donald Trump making a profit when staying at his own hotel just shows he is smart. But that slogan…pure genius.

Quote:
Oh, and you probably won't win. Just like McCain in the 2008 election who only raised half as much money. So the status quo of "who raises the most money, wins" still continues.

You mean probably still continues right? McCain lost by almost 10 million votes in 2008, and McCain did not badly damage Obama’s ability to govern before the election was even over. I expect this election to be a lot closer, we will know more in another day.

Quote:
The only trail that Trump is blazing is a frightening and, frankly, embarrassing one that I hope is never followed in the future of US politics.

It is good that you feel strong emotions over the topics that Trump raised this election. That shows we are fighting about real issues this election, and that this election is about real choices. Uncomfortable topics and truths should be discussed in the open and it is expected that will make people uncomfortable. We deserve to have this every four years, instead of declaring a whole number of topics taboo and off-limits, thus turning the election into national kabuki theater.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Paul Watson wrote:
Ok. What? What, precisely, has Trump done that is objectively good runnign for President?

1) Genuine campaign finance reform

2) Starting a national discussion about immigration
3) Helping to start a national discussion about voter fraud and whether or not the system is rigged
4) Putting an end to the Bush dynasty
5) Showing that Mitt Romney can actually get angry over something. If Romney had gotten that angry at Obama, he might have won in 2012.
6) Making Hillary Clinton work harder than she ever has before.
7) Inspiring CNN to abandon its former brand and proudly adopt a new brand, that being a SuperPAC for the Democratic party
8) Driving a stake through the vampiric wing of the Republican party that kept insisting the Iraq War was a net positive.
9) Exposing Faux News as being Faux Conservative as well.
10) Inspiring Glen Beck to commit career suicide.
11) Inspiring Vicente Fox to let us know how the Mexican 1% really feel about Americans.
12) Showing just how many lying empty suits there are in the Republican Party. (Ok, this last one is padding, we all knew that already.)

Rednal wrote:
@NPCDave From what I can tell... Trump's good at talking in a way that makes people believe he's saying what they want to hear, even when he's giving no specifics and his 'plans' are wildly unlikely even at best. He doesn't tell you WHAT he'll do, just that it will be "great", the "best ever". He slams people with those kinds of unsupported positive words over and over until they start believing him, often because they imagine what 'great' is like and assume that's what he means. He projects onto others, and in turn, gets his supporters to project onto him.

I completely agree, he is big on talk and he won’t succeed as President if he just keeps talking. I didn’t throw my support to him until that tape came out and he didn’t back down but fought back harder. That was action, taking a stand and refusing to bow to unbelievably intense political pressure. That convinced me he would do the same in office. We shall see if he gets the chance to prove me right or wrong.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
Has anyone here actually claimed Trump was any good? Hillary sucks but come on, so does Trump.

Yes, I am claiming Trump is good. Well, that he is doing some objective good running for President. If you are asking if I think Trump is a good person, I can’t exactly say that. But you can quote me in saying that I firmly believe Donald Trump is not 100% a…


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Coriat wrote:

Taxes/proposed additional item: In my previous post I was not following the nomenclature that BNW/you advanced, apologies if that confused my point. Attempting to use that nomenclature, it seems I should say that his plan involves a tax cut for all, plus additional tax breaks (most pertinently elimination of the estate tax and an enormous cut to the corporate tax rate) for the wealthy (which obviously is in large part made up of those who collect corporate profits). I'm willing to use these names, but I'm not seeing how changing the name makes this anything other than a win for the rich.

The upper middle class pays estate taxes, but not the 1%. The 1% use trusts to completely evade estate taxes. When Sam Walton, founder of Wal-mart, passed away, the government thought it was going to get a big payday. It got nothing.

Now corporate taxes…you got me on that one. If Trump cuts corporate taxes, some of the 1% are going to benefit. That is unavoidable if Trump is serious about making America great again and bringing business and industry back into the USA. Currently the corporate tax rates encourage businesses to keep as much money and investment overseas where they don’t have to pay the US taxes. Even though the rate is nominally 35%, it is effectively lower with corporations keeping profits overseas. I won’t argue that trickle-down economics is going to help poor people, only that corporate tax reductions are one way of bringing back American jobs. But yes that one will help billionaires too.

Quote:

1) Not disputing.

2) While I tend to agree that there is a decent chance of a recession in the next four years (under any conceivable candidate), it's not clear that it will be the type of severe recession that would prompt such enormous bailout pressure. Most recessions are milder. That said, this is kind of a dodge, so assuming that it is a severe recession, it's not clear to me why we wouldn't expect Trump to cut a deal for a bailout. I don't see where you show there is a link between his behavior in personal feuds (when attacked, counterattack) and what he would or would not do when facing a bailout question that has little to do with personal feuds and where he hasn't tied himself strongly to any particular outcome in advance.

Wall Street is heavily invested in a Clinton victory

The donations to each candidate show where Wall Street thinks the candidates sympathies are..
Hillary $65,000,000
Trump $716,407

Trump has collected just 1% of the total Hillary collected from the traders and bankers. That is the most evidence I can show you, unless Trump wins. If so, his Treasury Secretary pick will either discredit or strengthen my claim.

Quote:
3) I think you've got rose-tinted glasses on and are interpreting those personal feuds with some wealthy/powerful people as a battle against wealth and power. I'm not sure you've presented a convincing reason to agree with you - on billionaires in the cabinet, for example, your argument seems to basically boil down to "I'll interpret him as being this way because this is the way I hope that he would be." If you take off the rose-tinted glasses, big tax breaks (to use correct nomenclature?) for the wealthy and billionaires in the Cabinet is a damn weird way to go about hobbling the billionaire class.

Yes I am wearing rose-tinted glasses when it comes to Trump, guilty as charged. We all have it for our preferred candidate, confirmation bias.

So let me try and take the glasses off as best I can, and address your point.

First his personal feuds have gone way beyond personal, he has established a stark contrast this election. It is Donald Trump and his supporters versus the “political establishment.” His latest ad can be viewed here, and it keeps hammering that message home. And the ad isn’t just attacking the Clintons and the Democratic party, it attacks Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve, it attacks George Soros, it attacks the G20 central bank governors, it attacks NAFTA, and it attacks TPP.

Donald Trump has permanently burned his bridges with the global elite and with the political establishment. They will never stop hating him for what he has done. Every single US presidential election since 1912 has had both the Democratic and Republican party candidates vetted and approved by the political establishment and the 1% with the sole exceptions of Barry Goldwater and Donald Trump. This may be the only election in our lifetimes where we can vote for someone whom the political establishment hates and despises that is in one of the two main parties.

Going back to the presidential cabinet, I should explain why I don’t consider it important beyond a few key appointments which symbolically(such as Treasury Secretary) show what direction Trump is going to take. That is because, IMO, it is impossible for the President to effect change with his(or her) appointments.

All the appointments a President makes are found in the Plum Book. That amounts to between 4000-5000+ people, mostly heads of federal departments, directors and top deputies of federal agencies, members of federal commissions, and heads of regulatory agencies. First, it is impossible to know that many people, let alone manage them. If you appoint 10 people a day, it still takes over a year to fill all the positions. And once they have the job, it will take six months to get up to speed. So that means some departments won’t see anyone new until halfway through the first Presidential term.

And now we come to the biggest problem…the bureaucracy is entrenched to make sure it serves the interests of the bureaucrats who already work there…NOT the President or the Presidential appointee who just arrived and will be gone in a year or two or three. Civil service law means the bureaucrats can’t be fired. How do you effect change when you can’t fire the entrenched bureaucracy if it refuses to change? You can’t. Oh, and anyone the President appoints has to be willing to move to DC for at least two years and presumably relocate their family and rent out their current house if they own it. Not many people want to do that, so you have a limited pool of people you can appoint, many beltway types already in DC who drift in and out of government their whole lives and are part of the problem.

So, to be fair, I need to come up with a substitute for what Trump can do to show he is on the side of Ordinary Joe Schmoes when he gets in office, and how he can get their input. What he has to do is keep his direct social media channels open with his voters, and keep them involved with his legislative initiatives. Now the President can’t legislate, he can only ask Congress to pass laws. So Trump will have to use his communication channels to get the people to lobby their congressional representatives for his legislative agenda. Those in Congress who give him a hard time will need to have their feet held to the fire. One thing true for all politicians, “when they feel the heat, they see the light.” First said by a very effective lobbyist.

And this also gives Trump feedback on what people really want. If he can’t get them pushing hard against their own congress rep, then that isn’t the law he should be pushing to have enacted. Congress can affect those entrenched bureaucrats, with budget cuts. Pulling money out of departments that have too much(like the Pentagon) and giving it to other departments will enable Trump to get the bureaucrats fighting for him instead of against him. If the Pentagon loses budget dollars to the National Park Service, those NPS bureaucrats will fight more savagely than Navy Seals to preserve their bigger budget even after Trump leaves office.

So that is what Trump has to set up and implement to show he is going to listen to Ordinary Joe Schmoes, if he wins. If he doesn’t do that, his presidency will likely end in failure. And if the voters lose interest, which is actually likely considering most Americans only like to get hyped up about politics once every four years, then Trump will still likely fail. He can’t succeed in office without the people who put him there continuing to help him succeed.

Is he going to actually do this? No idea, but that is how he can keep the promise he makes in that ad.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Spastic Puma wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Spastic Puma wrote:

"Trump has shown us that you don’t need a billion dollars or more to run for President"

Really? REALLY? The guy who's a rich business man? The one who's entire identity revolves around making money and mastering the "art of the deal"? The guy who sticks his name on skyscrapers, steaks, vodka, etc. and whatever else he can (attempt) to make a profit off of? The one who owns his own private jets?
The guy who has used his own private real estate and transportation the entire campaign and paid for it using donation money so that it all gets funneled back into his company?

Yes really. If you don't believe me, . Hillary Clinton has raised over $1 billion, Donald Trump has half of that.

I will agree he “self-financed” his entire primary campaign, he did it with $56 million of his money and all that press coverage.
You are going to see people follow this route first with congressional races, both at the state and the federal level. There the overall monetary needs are lower. From there it will only be a matter of time before someone tries it for governor and then eventually president once again. By that time they will need a lot less than the $500 million of capital to make a presidential run, relying even further on social media and the networks than Trump did.

This still doesn't address the heart of my post. Trump's identity and claim to fame IS HIS WEALTH. He's a rich guy by anyone's definition.

You know it.
I know it.
Saying that Trump proves that you don't need to be rich to run for president is literally the most ludicrous example you could have chosen.

I didn’t say you don’t need to be rich, I said you don’t need a billion dollars. That was the conventional wisdom going into 2015, that you would need to raise and spend over $1 billion to become president.

Fundraising for the 2004 US presidential election: John Kerry $310 million George Bush $345 million

Fundraising for the 2008 US presidential election: Barack Obama $760 million John McCain $358 million

Fundraising for the 2012 US presidential election: Barack Obama $985 million Mitt Romney $992 million

The trend was clear. More and more politicians needed to look to billionaire sugar daddies to keep them well-funded and have any hope of being President. And people were demanding campaign finance reform, without any clear idea of exactly how this was going to be stopped.

Hillary Clinton continues the trend, she needed that $1 billion. But in a ludicrously ironic twist, a billionaire has bucked the trend, showing a new way to build a brand instead of being an empty suit for your billionaire backers. You can do more with less money if you have a message and you have a pre-built audience. Trump steamrolled his Republican rivals at 10 cents on the dollar. And now he has a good shot at winning the Presidency at half-price. If he gets the US Presidency back for the American people at half the price, that is a good deal from the guy who brought us The Art of the Deal.

Whether Trump wins or not(but especially if he wins), the billionaires are going to be demanding their paid flunkies collect more votes for less money. Even politicians have to adapt to the pressures of a competitive free market.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
randomwalker wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Why would Comey be worried about leaks? Because Trump is keeping up the pressure, demanding justice. That is LEADERSHIP...

It may be called leadership, but to me it certainly doesn't sound like he wants justice. It looks exactly like he just wants her out of the way so he can grab power.

Shouting for someone to be imprisoned without a trial or even evidence is just sad. Doing so for obvious political gains is disgusting. And not questioning the motives of those shouting loudest is stupid.

:-(

Donald Trump promised to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton in that same debate. By definition, a prosecutor receives the evidence gathered by investigators, formulates charges based on that evidence(if any), and then presents that evidence at trial. He said she “should” be in jail, not that he would throw her in jail without trial or evidence.

cmastah wrote:

Isn't threatening to jail your opposition if you win undemocratic?

I meant attempting to intimidate your opponent with threats of jailing them should you win is not in the spirit of democracy. The reasons he cites are nonsense as all investigations against her have found nothing, if he jails her he'll be no different than democratically elected dictator.

If Trump were to win, and Hillary Clinton is put on trial and found guilty of breaking the law and then thrown in jail, that would not make Trump a dictator. That would simply mean Trump is enforcing the rule of law.

But if he were to break his promise and just throw her in jail without a trial, then yes that would make him a dictator.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Devon Northwood wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Quote:
Trump is good at being born rich. Seriously. He inherited his entire fortune and would have been richer if he'd just sold the company and put the money into other peoples investments .
It’s Donald Trump’s fault he doesn’t have more money because he couldn’t see decades into the future?

Well...yes?!

If he is a successful businessman, that means he can invest money better than other people.

Actually no. Let’s review the definition of a businessperson

Quote:
A businessperson is someone involved in business - in particular someone undertaking activities (commercial or industrial) for the purpose of generating cash flow, sales, and revenue utilizing a combination of human, financial, intellectual and physical capital with a view to fuelling economic development and growth. An entrepreneur is an example of a businessperson. The term "businessperson" may refer to founder, owner, or majority shareholder of a business or it can also be used to describe a high-level executive who does the everyday running and management of a business even though the executive is not the owner.

Notice the word “invest” is nowhere to be found. A successful businessman is successful in running a business or building up a business or creating a business. Someone who can invest money better than other people is a skilled investor...

Quote:
An investor allocates capital with the expectation of a future financial return.[1] Types of investments include: equity, debt securities, real estate, currency, commodity, derivatives such as put and call options, futures, forwards, etc. This definition makes no distinction between those in the primary and secondary markets. That is, someone who provides a business with capital and someone who buys a stock are both investors.
randomwalker wrote:
And he can't, not if he is beaten by the index. No seeing-into-the-future involved.

Two different words, two different definitions, two different skill sets. Donald Trump claims he is skilled in “closing a deal”, not investing for a higher rate of return. Warren Buffet is the master of getting the highest rate of return. This whole argument is nothing but a bait-and-switch. And yes, they do have to assume Trump can see the future when they make this argument…I will use this article to show why.

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Meh. Paris Hilton is objectively better at business than Trump is.

That article links to the following Fortune article which says

Quote:

Trump’s net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion. The S&P 500 has grown 1,336% since 1988.

If you are wondering why they chose 1988, that would be because there was a stock market crash in 1987. If Donald Trump had invested his entire net worth in 1987 instead of 1988, he might have ended up a lot poorer. It would depend on what he decided to do after the greatest one-day market crash in history. A lot of people were panicking then…

How exactly is Donald Trump supposed to know to start investing in the stock market in 1988 instead of 1987? Why not 1982? Why not 1976? Why not 1999? Either he has to learn a new skill set he never claimed to have, or he has to have precognitive abilities, or he has to have someone come back from the future and tell him when to invest all this money and where.

Not surprising he decided to stick with real estate and the Trump brand, things he knows.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Another thing I appreciate about Trump is how hard he is making Hillary work to earn the presidency. If she wins, at least he made her work for it.

Hahahahhahahaahhahahahhahahaa

JEB would have beaten her. Romney would have beaten her. Kasich would have crushed her. Hell, if he'd been the GOP candidate, Bernie probably could have beaten her.

Which one of those guys would have told Hillary she belongs in jail on national television?

That was a huge risk Donald Trump took. It could still back fire on him beyond the election. Hillary isn’t known to forgive and forget, at best Trump can look forward to more lawsuits and more federal investigations if he loses.

But saying it just paid off on Friday. There is no way James Comey wanted to open this can of worms. He either goes down in history as torpedoing Hillary’s presidential campaign, or the guy who tried to torpedo Hillary’s presidential campaign. The Republicans already hated his guts, now the Democrats do too*.

Reading his letter to Congress, it is obvious he did it because he had no choice. If he didn’t do it, someone under him was going to leak it, and it would look like a cover up.

Why would Comey be worried about leaks? Because Trump is keeping up the pressure, demanding justice. That is LEADERSHIP. The FBI investigators know they aren’t alone, they know that someone else has already stuck their neck out and put it all on the line, and that gives them the moral courage to take a stand and demand their higher-ups do the right thing and make it clear to the public this investigation is still active and ongoing.

It was pretty obvious after it became impossible for Sanders to win that he held on hoping that the FBI and US AG were going to indict Hillary so he could become the Democratic candidate. But it doesn’t work that way. No one was going to show up and handcuff Hillary and hand Sanders the nomination on a silver platter. You want it, you have to work hard and fight for it. Sanders wasn’t willing to fight hard enough. No one is going to stick their neck out for you if you don’t have the courage to do it first.

What Trump did is what great football players do on the football field. They make plays. They force the other team to react to what they are doing. Donald Trump just forced a turnover in favor of the Ordinary Joe Schmoes. Turnovers don’t win games by themselves, but it gives the other team another chance.

Did you see Hillary at her brief press conference in reaction to the FBI announcement? She looked defeated. Tell me again how hard she isn’t working.

*Of course, I suppose Comey could still somewhat redeem himself in the eyes of Democrats if he can announce the close of the investigation in the next few days. Anything can happen in this election and it does every few days.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
That group would be the 1%, but I wouldn’t use the word “hate” or “terrible”. I would say that I despise the stupidity* of the 1% and I am morally outraged with the disruption and chaos they cause.
Nothing they do is stupid.

Not true.

Quote:
They have the entire system working for them, and ITS WORKING.

Hence the disruption and chaos.

Quote:
Trump is good at being born rich. Seriously. He inherited his entire fortune and would have been richer if he'd just sold the company and put the money into other peoples investments .

It’s Donald Trump’s fault he doesn’t have more money because he couldn’t see decades into the future?

Quote:

Yes, he got a "small loan" of a few million (in 1975 money) from his father, but after he didn't blow that he ALSO got the entire company: if i run the hardware store for someone you can bet i don't inherit the entire thing when they retire.

The idea that Donald trump will, out of the goodness of his heart, close tax loopholes that make him richer by billions because we're paying him 250,000 dollars is absolutely absurd.

I said he is going to inflict pain on the billionaires. I didn’t say it was going to be by closing tax loopholes.

Quote:

The man has never shown that he even understands the concept of what sacrifice is, much less made one.

He is promoting trickle down economics, the same economic platform that romney, reagan, bush 2 and bush 1 all went for.

Along with the Democrats, who also practice trickle down economics.

Quote:

The same economic platform the 1% has always justified. They aren't not promoting trump because he has a bad idea, they're not promoting him because he's going to lose, and if he loses big their control over the system could take a huge hit.

We shall see if he loses, but the billionaires supporting Hillary won’t be taking a hit if she wins.

thejeff wrote:

And yet somehow the 1% keep pushing for the actual tax cuts. For the top rates to be lowered, even at the cost of closing loopholes.

Tell that to Warren Buffet.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

Let's apply this rationale to another issue:

You believe Trump wants to stick it to the 1%, to clean out their influence from politics.

However, there are several 1%-ers who are backing Trump, including Peter Thiel who you've mentioned a few times now.

If Trump really wanted to stick it to he 1%, all billionaires would oppose them. Since several of them don't, you and the billionaires who oppose him must be seeing an illusion.

You are absolutely correct.

That Donald Trump is going to stick it to the billionaires after the election could very well be my hallucination. I could be wrong.

I will still support him, first and foremost, because, as you said, most of the other billionaires agree with me, whether it is a hallucination or not. If it is an illusion, it still makes Trump a thorn in their side for the duration of the election, and I like to see my enemies squirm. And, of course, Trump hitting the Bezos, Bush, and Koch families aren’t illusions, those hits are real, even if it will stop after the election.

For the record though, Peter Thiel is a billionaire who provides seed money to the company Legalist, which is an exciting idea that can help Ordinary Joe Schmoes fund their lawsuits when they have a legitimate claim against a big corp. Someone like Roger Kearns would have greatly benefited from Legalist. So Peter Thiel sees things my way, whether it is an illusion or not. I don’t know enough about the others to say, except that Adelson has always made Israel his top priority.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:

Lets get a scenario here just for the sake of seeing where the line is drawn. lets say Boss 1. (we will use numbers and letter designations) Hits on employee A. employee A does not appreciate these advances however employee A is worried what boss 1 would do if the adavnces were rejected. therefore employee A allows it. Is employee A being sexually assaulted?

Now It may just be him bragging about conquest or it might be him using his influence money and power to put women in situations where they can not do anything about it. Do you know for a fact which it is?

Also the wording is terribly inconsistent with yours "let him" is a passive response. as opposed to wanted him to.

We don’t need to posit scenarios, I am sure you and I have both been through similar sexual harassment training and we are both reasonably familiar with the sexual harassment laws and sexual assault laws. The line is simple and straight forward…the woman must grant consent, and consent cannot be coerced.

I know for a fact that the woman being discussed in Donald Trump’s conversation with Billy Bush, Nancy O’Dell I believe, was in a situation where she could do something about it because she shot him down and he failed to seduce her.

As for “when you’re a star, they let you do it”, he says “when you’re a star”, not “when you’re the boss” and not “when you’re the guy writing the checks”. He is talking about his celebrity status helping him pick up women with another celebrity who presumably experiences the same thing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

The one who "self-financed" his entire primary campaign?

Also, the one who's losing big time and is far behind in the money race. Who knows he's losing and isn't bothering to put more of his own money into the game.

Spastic Puma wrote:

"Trump has shown us that you don’t need a billion dollars or more to run for President"

...
Really? REALLY? The guy who's a rich business man? The one who's entire identity revolves around making money and mastering the "art of the deal"? The guy who sticks his name on skyscrapers, steaks, vodka, etc. and whatever else he can (attempt) to make a profit off of? The one who owns his own private jets?

The guy who has used his own private real estate and transportation the entire campaign and paid for it using donation money so that it all gets funneled back into his company?

Wow. Just, wow.

Yes really. If you don't believe me, . Hillary Clinton has raised over $1 billion, Donald Trump has half of that.

I will agree he “self-financed” his entire primary campaign, he did it with $56 million of his money and all that press coverage.

You are going to see people follow this route first with congressional races, both at the state and the federal level. There the overall monetary needs are lower. From there it will only be a matter of time before someone tries it for governor and then eventually president once again. By that time they will need a lot less than the $500 million of capital to make a presidential run, relying even further on social media and the networks than Trump did.

As for “losing big time”, I already said this election is going to be close and I still say it will be close.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

Loathe? That is a strawman argument. I am sure the three guys I cited also loathe gay conversion therapy. I didn’t cite those guys because I was arguing some gays like that therapy.

I cited those three men because this particular dispute started over the assertion that Trump wants 16 year old gay children to undergo gay conversion therapy. That is false and if 80% of gays still believe it than 80% of gays are seeing an illusion that is not there.

I posted the link to the 20% last time, but here it is again

Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.

I was curious so I went to see why this year’s platform was the most anti-GLBT in history. I read this, “Opposition to marriage equality, nonsense about bathrooms, an endorsement of the debunked psychological practice of ‘pray the gay away’ — it’s all in there”

Ok, sure it is all in there. Does that mean it will actually happen? When do Republicans ever keep their promises? Here is another plank in the platform… We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare.

I tell pro-life Christians that if they think the Republicans are actually going to do this, they are hallucinating. And they don’t believe me.

I think Trump might keep his promises, but he isn’t going to fight for this as President. To paraphrase Peter Thiel, this election is about more important things than who is going to use which bathroom.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?"

No, just that unless you're going to call 20% of homosexuals self hating it's entirely possible that he's voting for trump and doesn't hate the LGBT crowd.

He may just hate some other group that trump wants to make life terrible for.

That group would be the 1%, but I wouldn’t use the word “hate” or “terrible”. I would say that I despise the stupidity* of the 1% and I am morally outraged with the disruption and chaos they cause. And I am not going to say that Trump is going to make their lives terrible, just that he is a thorn in their side at the moment, and I am going to see if I can’t help drive that thorn in a little deeper.

*The problem rich people have is they think that because they were good at what made them rich, that must mean they are good at anything else they try. They aren’t. My biggest fear isn’t that Trump loses, it is that Trump wins and discovers he doesn’t have the skill set to achieve what I think are his objectives. Managing executive branch bureaucrats is an entirely different skill than managing private sector employees.

Kung Fu Joe wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
No one controls Donald Trump...
...not even Donald Trump!

I actually thought about saying that myself, but I knew if I didn’t, someone else would. Thank you Kung Fu Joe!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:

Every four years we saw an ever escalating amount of money invested into the presidential candidates. Obama and Romney set new records in 2012, which had been set in 2008, and so on. Of course, no amount of laws could ever hope to stop it, the monied interests would find some way to get around it.

But Trump has shown how to get around that. He has used social media to get his message out and bypass the gatekeepers. He accomplished this with a fraction of the money other candidates spend. He has provided a roadmap for candidates in the future, and as they follow it the billionaires will lose influence as their money can’t buy social media followers or counter the messages which spread virally from smaller internet communities.

Trump accomplished NONE of that. It was GIVEN to him by the media, an estimated billion dollars worth of free publicity, because of the decades he's spent being a sideshow attraction. They do it because Trump means ratings.

Exactly, they do it because Trump means ratings. That is how Trump accomplished the impossible feat of campaign finance reform without passing a law. He built up his brand and built a political message into the entertainment he provided. The media had no choice but to give him that publicity, their ratings would dive if he wasn’t on the screen.

You don’t get people to watch and listen to you without earning their attention. Trump earned their attention, he earned those ratings, and he earned that publicity.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Quote:
The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot box. Freedom of speech includes the right to devote resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government. Limits on political speech serve only to protect the powerful and insulate incumbent officeholders. We support repeal of federal restrictions on political parties in McCain-Feingold, raising or repealing contribution limits, protecting the political speech of advocacy groups, corporations, and labor unions, and protecting political speech on the internet. We likewise call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government.

This is what you support voting for Trump.

Sure, is there a problem with that paragraph above? I particularly agree with the following line…”free-market approaches to free speech”.

Trump has shown us that you don’t need a billion dollars or more to run for President. Not if you build your own personal brand, build your own following in social media that reaches more people than even a major news network show, and build a message that resonates with voters. The news networks are becoming irrelevant, you and I and anyone else won’t need them to get our message out.

The next generation of politicians are going to include people who build their own brand and build their own following from the ground up, it won’t just be puppets bought and paid for by billionaires. I like this free-market approach. Campaign finance reform laws are going to be out of date.

Quote:

This is not "sticking it to the Billionaire Boys."

Trump has you fooled.

Trump has you fooled as surely as if you were here arguing climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China.
Trump has you fooled as surely as if you were here arguing Hillary Clinton is dying of Parkinson's.
As surely as if you were here arguing that Obama was born in Kenya...
Or that Vince Foster and Antonin Scalia were murdered.
Or that Ted Cruz's father killed JFK
Or that vaccines are liked to autism
Or that thousands cheered 9/11 in New Jersey

Trump has you fooled.

Fooled about what? The conflicts between him and the other billionaires are real. The main issues I identified in this election are real(albeit some are in dispute). Will this country have open borders or return to nationalism? Will paid lobbying continue as usual or be dramatically reformed?

Quote:

And he's not even trying that hard...

Another thing I appreciate about Trump is how hard he is making Hillary work to earn the presidency. If she wins, at least he made her work for it.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Donald Trump wrote:
I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

This is what he thinks he can get away with because he's a star.

Correction: He said the women let him get away with it because he’s a star.

Quote:
And you want to make him President...

Yes I do, although I am not voting for him because he said that, or proud to vote for him because he said that. I am proud to vote for him because of his stand on the issues which are at stake in this election. And there are far more important things at stake in this election than how easy it is for a billionaire to get laid.

I get it. It isn’t fair that most women would rather have sex with a billionaire or a quarterback than us Ordinary Joe Schmoes. I agree but life isn’t fair. As men, we can still build our bodies and minds to be successful and attractive and attract a woman who admires us. That was always good enough for me.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Coriat wrote:

Re: the invitation to scrutinize whether or not these are the main issues important to billionaires, I'd certainly want to add at least one more, taxes. And that is one where the trump-vs-1% theory seems to fall down, since it's not necessarily traditional for a president to show his enmity towards the rich by cutting their taxes.

BigNorseWolf explained it better than I did…

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Tax cuts are for everyone. Tax breaks are for your rich friends.

Tax cuts help anyone who pays taxes. Not just the rich. If Trump is going to look out for the 1%, he is going to offer tax breaks, not tax cuts. We can presume the tax cut is there to help everyone who gets it. Not to provide cover for helping out the 1%.

Quote:

To the points that you did raise:

1) Globalization. I'm mostly OK with this one and not going to argue it. I can accept that the anti-trade platform he's run on is counter to the interests of, at least, large portions of the wealthy. Sure, put this in the W column if you're an anti-globalist.
2) Big banks. I'm not sure this one belongs on the list. I'm sure he's mentioned this stuff, but I haven't seen him make a big deal out of it and I'm not sure I'd expect much to change on this count under his administration one way or another. My understanding of his plans for being president is that he'll focus on a few high-profile, signature issues, and leave most everything else to others, and I haven't seen any sign that bailout policy is going to be at the top of his list. This pretty much means that it will stay in the hands of Congressmen, staffers, lobbyists, and the usual crowd, the people who implemented the stuff we've done in the past. Neutral/tie game here.

You are correct that bailouts have not been a big issue with this campaign, although Cruz and Trump sparred over it during the Republican primaries, where both clearly opposed TARP. Cruz accurately hit Trump for expressing his verbal support back in 2008 and 2009, Trump hit back by pointing out Cruz’s wife is a Goldman Sachs banker.

But I do see it becoming a major issue in the new few years. Another recession is going to hit sooner or later, it is only a matter of time. We have gone eight years since the last one and so it is likely to be sooner rather than later. And because the problems with the US banking system were merely papered over last time, the recession is going to result in either another government bailout or some bank failures. So even if it isn’t on Trump’s radar, it likely will be, and he won’t leave that decision to subordinates. No subordinate will want to make that call and take the blame.

And just like with TARP, the political pressure to extend a bailout is going to be tremendous. Even though many citizens were contacting their congressional representatives to vote no, most of them caved and passed TARP. So it isn’t enough to just say you will be against something like TARP, you have to be able to withstand the political and media pressure.

And Trump showed me could do that on the weekend of Oct 8th and 9th. The media hit him with everything they had, the Republicans betrayed him, and the pressure to give up was off the charts. Trump didn’t quit, he just fought back harder. Now I know he won’t quit if he is President and there is another banking crisis.

Quote:

3) Political control. Far as I can tell this one belongs firmly in the L column. I'm not necessarily inclined to believe that Trump is personally not influenceable by the money of the 1% (which is his main argument on this count). If he wasn't eager for more money, he wouldn't have spent so much time this campaign pushing his products. But I also don't think that that is the most important factor. Billionaires don't get heard because they have the President on speed dial and direct deposit prearranged - which they don't. They get heard because they buy the people who influence the people who surround the President and work in the administration.

Or they serve in the administration directly. Now, the parade of non-policy-related scandals Trump has courted lately has been drowning out much talk of, say, who his cabinet will be, but last I heard (in the summer) fellow billionaires were prominent on his list (which again doesn't suggest he is crusading against them). I recall hearing of Icahn and several CEOs floated as cabinet picks.
Even if you grant that Trump himself is not corrupt (I don't, but for the sake of argument) - think U.S. Grant and his infamously corrupt administration without the suggestion of personal wrongdoing. If you aren't disciplined about managing your administration, you don't have to be personally accepting the cash in order to preside over a cesspool of corruption and influence peddling. Trump seems anything but disciplined when it comes to managing his campaign, so I don't see that changing if he ends up managing an administration. And in any case if you put other billionaires in your cabinet, then other billionaires is who you'll be hearing when you decide on policy.

The gameboard changed as soon as the Trump-Billy Bush tape hit the TV networks. That was when Trump could see who his enemies and who his friends are. And he saw that he had way more enemies than he thought he had, including much of the Republican party. That wasn’t just a media bombshell or a Democratic political maneuver, it was a Republican coup.

If Trump wins, he is going to have to go to war with his own party and purge his Republican enemies from DC. That will mean he has to bring in outsiders if he has any chance of success. He said the following on October 13th…

“For those who control the levers of power in Washington and for the global special interests, they partner with these people that don’t have your good in mind. Our campaign represents a true existential threat, like they haven’t seen before. This is not simply another four-year election. This is a crossroads in the history of our civilization that will determine whether or not we, the people, reclaim control over our government.”

No presidential candidate has ever talked like that before, and it isn’t just talk, he is backing it up with specific policy proposals now.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Monday will propose a five-year ban on executive branch officials lobbying after they leave government if he is elected, according to excerpts of a speech on fixing ethics problems in Washington.

Trump also will say he plans to ask Congress to impose its own five-year ban on former lawmakers and their staff lobbying as well as set a lifetime ban on senior executive branch officials lobbying for foreign governments.

This is going to start filtering out some of the billionaire minions who shuttle in and out of government and the corporate lobbying firms . Of course, I would prefer ten years, but five is a decent start.
Now I concede that Trump’s cabinet will likely consist of many who are in the 1%. If he is at all sincere about what he is saying, and I can’t prove that he is, then those cabinet members have to be like him…assuming he is sincere..fed up with what their peers are doing, and determined to pry the levers of power out of their hands and give it back to the people. Peter Thiel would be one such person.

As long as we are going to add more issues to it, I have a fourth issue to raise that I considered before but didn’t include because it isn’t a consensus among the billionaires. That would be whether the USA is going to have peaceful relations with Russia(Trump's position), or go back to a cold war or worse(Hillary's position). Only some billionaires actually want the US to go hostile with Russia, George Soros being the foremost I can name.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Don't forget his support for unlimited dark money for campaigning, too.

Actually, Trump single-handedly accomplished campaign finance reform. And he did it without passing a single law. He did it just by running for office.

Every four years we saw an ever escalating amount of money invested into the presidential candidates. Obama and Romney set new records in 2012, which had been set in 2008, and so on. Of course, no amount of laws could ever hope to stop it, the monied interests would find some way to get around it.

But Trump has shown how to get around that. He has used social media to get his message out and bypass the gatekeepers. He accomplished this with a fraction of the money other candidates spend. He has provided a roadmap for candidates in the future, and as they follow it the billionaires will lose influence as their money can’t buy social media followers or counter the messages which spread virally from smaller internet communities.

Knight who says Meh wrote:

Honestly, in my opinion, you sound like you support him simply because he's an a$$#*#!.

So...I was right?

I will use a football analogy.

Every year, the Ordinary Joe Schmoes travel to play against the home team, the Billionaire Boys. And every year, as much as anyone can recall, the Ordinary Joe Schmoes lose.

This year looked to be no different. It is midway through the fourth quarter, and the Billionaire Boys are winning 56-0.

And then, suddenly, inexplicably, Donald Trump stripped the ball from his own quarterback, turned around, and started sprinting the wrong way, running toward his own end zone.

We can speculate on why he is doing it…

1) Maybe he got fed up with the quarterback not calling his favorite plays.
2) Maybe his personal feud with the head coach just came to a head.
3) Maybe he got turned around by accident and doesn’t realize he is running the wrong way.
4) Maybe he just got disgusted with his own team for running up the score.
5) Maybe he had intermediaries place a bet with the bookies and he is doing this for a big payday.
6) And yes, maybe he is doing it, just because he’s an a$$#*#!.

It is a dick move to do that to your own team. But Donald Trump being a dick isn’t the reason I am running down the field trying to keep his own teammates from tackling him. I am doing it because Donald Trump may be the only chance Ordinary Joe Schmoes have to get some points on the board this game. Which is why I am going to throw a block for him in November and hope that somehow, some way, he can get across that goal line.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Coriat wrote:

Hi Dave.

I don't think your Bush anecdotes prove your point, or even necessarily support it. The argument you advanced was that Trump is an enemy of the 1%. That's a broad claim, that he'd oppose the power of that class in general.

The Bush anecdote is narrow. Even if we expand it beyond the Bushes individually and assume that he does this to other people too (and I won't argue, he does), it shows that he's against personal rivals of his within the 1%.

It doesn't show that he opposes the class itself.

I think in order to demonstrate the latter you need different evidence on a scale larger than this or that single one percenter.

Now, I'm not saying that nobody within the silver spoon brigade has ever sided against their class as a whole, some have - I'm just saying that I don't see how doing so necessarily follows from the type of individual rivalries that you cited.

Might as well say that, as Augustus was a bitter enemy of Antony, Augustus was anti-elite. We know how THAT turned out, don't we?

(I'm aware that I am not responding to your whole post - but since the majority of your post is Bush, and it seems to make up the foundation of your argument on this point, I'll focus on it).

To answer your question, we have to look at the main issues that are being contested in this election. Not the sideshows and the smokescreens. The real fundamental issues which have been buried under “grab the p____” and just how sick Hillary may or may not be.

You may not agree that these are the main issues, or the premises as to where the billionaires stand on these issues. But raise objections as you see fit…

1) Nationalist vs Globalism
Billionaires are on the side of globalism, they want open borders and human migration.

2) Ordinary people’s savings vs Big banks
Billionaires are on the side of big corporation, especially big banks. When big banks suffer a major loss, they want to be reimbursed with ordinary people’s savings and tax payer dollars.

3) Political control
Billionaires want to control governments in order to maintain their financial advantage and preserve the status quo.

Not every member of the 1% wants this, but in general the 1% have these objectives. They fight among themselves as to who gets the best deals and who gets the most control, but they are in agreement on these objectives.

Donald Trump threatens them on each of these. He is a nationalist, and opposes open borders. He opposes bailing out the big banks. And by running for President, he threatens their political control. No one controls Donald Trump.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Until you tell me how handing the one percenters a massive tax cut is siding against them, that discussion is moot.

Drahliana, I am disappointed you didn’t offer a number…

NPC Dave wrote:

The next person who complains to me about tax cuts better have a number ready to show me as to exactly how big a tax cut it will need to be to make George Bush the elder feel better about all this. You guys keep demanding more evidence from me, so let’s see some quid pro quo.

Since no one offered an answer, it is the first half of the Mastercard slogan…

KingOfAnything wrote:
NPC Dave appears to believe that two families make up the top 1% of wealth in America.

Ok, fine here are two more examples.

Jeff Bezos, most famous for founding Amazon, is today worth over $70 billion. All I have to do is put his name and Donald Trump into Google search and I get…

“Donald Trump’s behavior erodes democracy”

“This is not an appropriate way for a presidential candidate to behave”

“It erodes our free speech norms”

“Let’s send Donald Trump into space”

Jeff Bezos is not a fan of Donald Trump. Neither is the Washington Post which Bezos also owns.

And it isn’t hard to understand why he isn’t going to care about a tax cut. At $70 billion, how big a tax cut would Jeff Bezos have to receive to even notice?

Not his accountants mind you, but Bezos himself. As in, “I don’t remember having this much in the bank, where did it come from?” My guess... you can’t make a tax cut big enough to get Bezos to notice. You would have to refund him at least two full years of paid taxes for him to notice.

Next up is Carlos Slim, billionaire owner of the New York Times and sponsor of the Obamaphone.

The NYT is no fan of Trump of course, but remember what Trump promised in addition to those tax cuts. He was going to renegotiate all of those trade deals.

Carlos Slim makes all sorts of money from those sweetheart deals he makes with the US government. No need to worry about competitors undercutting you if your contract is locked in with the US government…unless a new President comes in promising to redo every deal.

Carlos Slim can bribe Obama and Hillary, but he can’t bribe Trump. He will have to make concessions, Trump drives a hard bargain. Carlos Slim may lose his sweetheart deals if a competitor underbids him. Is Carlos ready to lower his operating costs to meet President Trump’s demands and the lower bids of competitors?

Better to forget that tax cut and make sure Trump doesn’t get elected to protect the larger investments.

thejeff wrote:

As I understand it, the Koch Bro's (and others) are spending money this cycle, but they're spending it down ticket. Fighting for Senators and House seats.

And I don't think it's so much that they think it's a wash, but they think it's a lost cause and their efforts are better directed to controlling Congress and blocking Clinton that way.

Also, Trump is a threat to their control of the Republican party. That control is far more important than a tax cut.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Explain to me why the Koch brothers are so thrilled with Trump's tax cuts that they don't want their people supporting him and are refusing to spend any money on him.

Trumps a sinking ship.

When trump goes, he's dragging the senate with him.

President + democratic senate= Bernie sanders on the supreme court if she wants.

Then there goes citizens united and the koch's brothers ability to overtly buy elections and KEEP getting those tax breaks.

I see the problem here, there is a difference between a tax break and a tax cut.

Tax break – a tax break means the government is offering you a reduction in your taxes.
When the government offers you a tax break, it means you’re getting a reduction in your taxes. A tax break can come in a variety of forms, such as claiming deductions or excluding income from your tax return

Tax cuts are changes that reduce the amount paid under the law to government revenue. The taxes cut are on income, profits, sales, or assets.

Donald Trump did promise to implement tax cuts. And Hillary Clinton has promised a tax increase. But that has nothing to do with tax breaks. Hillary can get Congress to raise taxes but then Congress can also give out tax breaks to the 1% so that they end up paying even less than before. That is how billionaires play the game and win.

But thanks for reminding me to point that out so I can show how Donald Trump can offer a tax cut and the Koch brothers and other billionaires are still against him. They don’t care about a measly tax cut. They have more important things to worry about like protecting their much larger tax breaks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
CrusaderWolf wrote:

I see conservative tokenism is alive and well. What does it matter that millions of LGBTQ people despise your candidate and your movement? Hah! You'll show them with your *four* (all male, 3/4 white + wealthy) gays! Relevant

I was informed that I consider gays my enemy because I am voting for Trump. I said that was nonsense. I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).

To show it was nonsense, I pointed out three very intelligent gay men who would be completely against Trump if that were true, but they don’t see the illusion of “gay conservative therapy”. And I offered to admit I was wrong by allowing that if even one of those three people could see the problem, then it really is a problem, and not an illusion.

That has nothing to do with “tokenism”. It has nothing to do with conservative. It has everything to do with this particular illusion. Let millions of GLBTQ people despise Trump for something real.

By the way, Justin Raimondo is not rich as far as I know. Not sure about Milo.

Quote:

Same thing is done with black people. "Sure we poll at less than 5% nationally with black Americans, but hey--Bill Cosby and Ben Carson like us!"

The main reason Trump is going to get crushed is because millions > four. So go wild, vote for Trump, have yourselves a big 'ol primal scream and pick a fight with a RINO defending a House seat. Cuddle up to dudes hollering about globalism & Jewish conspiracies and tell yourself whatever you need to to stay the course. Makes my job that much easier in '18.

According to this article, 20% of gays back Trump. But it wouldn’t matter what the percentage is, I will take pride in voting for Trump even if I am the only person in my state to do so. In fact, if he loses, I will still post here at least one more time so everyone gets a proper chance to mock me for backing him. Perhaps I can even remind all of you in 2018 so you can mock me again.

MMCJawa wrote:
It doesn't surprise me that Thiel and co are not making a big deal about conversion therapy. They are wealthy, independent adults. The real problem with conversion therapy is all those folks who don't fit into that category, especially teens who might get shipped off against their will and have to endure the sort of psychological abuse associated with conversion therapy.

You make a more credible point. But I will point out, once again, Pence isn’t Trump. Pence is the VP candidate. Trump doesn’t take orders from his subordinates. This election is not about gay conversion therapy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

...one lever pull at a time...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Majik Mouf wrote:
Seeing all you people jump all over that guy, slamming him left and right for nothing at all is making me want to vote for Trump just to spite you all.

Slamming me? No, these are love taps. I am enjoying this conversation.

It is no big deal, I know I have fans reading these replies, and I already explained why I am voting for Trump.

It is just my way of sticking it to the man


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Threatening to prosecute your political opponents is hardly "the rule of law".

That is not what I said. Let me fix this statement.

Threatening to prosecute your political opponents when they break the law is the rule of law.

Quote:
It's standard third world dictatorship behavior

Standard third world dictatorship behavior is not prosecuting the elite when they break the law. Which unfortunately happens in the USA now.

Quote:
See him prosecute his allies when they break the law, that's the test.

I agree completely.

Quote:
It's not clear what your evidence of his war with the 1% is here, except that he's against Clinton - possibly just for political reasons.

Maybe it is for noble reasons, maybe it is for political reasons, maybe it is to feed his giant ego.

But again, I don’t care.

Rednal wrote:

My understanding is that his budget plan involves tax cuts for the very wealthy - i.e. himself, and people like him - while shifting that burden onto the middle class.

I fail to see how this is even remotely close to stabbing the 1% in the back.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
I'm still not seeing how Trump has "betrayed the 1%." Because he wrote a mean tweet? He probably doesn't even remember that tweet at this point. Honestly, in my opinion, you sound like you support him simply because he's an a#!!*+$.
bugleyman wrote:

Trump wants to stick it to the 1%...by lowering their taxes? How brave of him.

Fine, you guys want more evidence. Ok, let’s start with another member of the 1%, George Bush, president 41, the father, not the son.

I assume you already saw the link to the picture of him with Donald Trump. Those two travel in the same social circles, dine at the same restaurants, live in similar gated communities. At the 1988 Republican National Convention in New Orleans, Donald Trump was there in a private suite as George Bush’s personal guest. No doubt there was always a quid pro quo arrangement between the two of them, a nice campaign donation here in exchange for a pliable government favor there.

Now George Bush is about as aristocratic an American as you can get. World War 2 veteran, Congressman, US ambassador to the UN, chairman of the RNC, director of the CIA, vice-president under Reagan, and a one-term president. He is the second man in the history of the USA to serve as President and then have his son serve as President.

And this was supposed to be the year for his (supposedly) favored son Jeb Bush, to run for President. It was Jeb’s turn. Everything in the Republican party is geared around whose turn it is. Much of the billionaire money goes into the person whose turn it is. That person gets the biggest warchest.

And George Bush was about to see his son take a shot at making history. He had a decent shot to become the one man who served as President and then watch two of his sons serve as President. And maybe Jeb could fix some of his brother’s screw-ups. Supposedly Jeb was the smart one.

And then he watched Donald Trump personally HUMILIATE AND EMASCULATE his son on national television. Donald Trump single-handedly turned his son into a joke. Jeb Bush is now nothing but a punchline begging for claps.

You guys keep going on and on about tax cuts. How big of a tax cut do you think George Bush needs to get over Donald Trump taking a big, fat dump all over his son and his shot at a unique historical record? Do you guys have any understanding of the diminishing marginal utility of income and wealth?

The next person who complains to me about tax cuts better have a number ready to show me as to exactly how big a tax cut it will need to be to make George Bush the elder feel better about all this. You guys keep demanding more evidence from me, so let’s see some quid pro quo.

Now let’s go back to the Koch brothers. These are the guys who buy US Senators with their money. Senators like Ron Johnson.

You guys think I only have Twitter as evidence Trump is warring with the Koch brothers? Think again.

Now the article does tell you that the Koch brothers cut off Johnson’s monetary lifeline the day after he spoke at the Republican National Convention. What did he do there? He campaigned for Trump. Next day, the Koch brothers lowered the boom.

It was a warning to the rest of the Republicans on their payroll. Don’t support Trump, or else. Trump’s war with the Koch brothers is a lot more than what you see on Twitter.

Explain to me why the Koch brothers are so thrilled with Trump's tax cuts that they don't want their people supporting him and are refusing to spend any money on him.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:

All three are gay men. The first two are supporting Trump, the third is cheering him on.

None of them see this “gay conversion therapy” pink elephant. If they don’t see it, it isn’t there.

Top notch logic.

This is true.

Quote:

These three people who are all personally and financially invested in the success of this candidate

This is not, one definitely is, one is arguable, and one is not.

Now go and read about the third individual. And feel free to show him the pink elephant to convince me I am wrong. Take your time.

But you want more gays for Trump? Here you go

He didn’t see the pink elephant before or after he was hit in the head.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

And there were Jews who worked at the concentration camps burying the dead before it was their turn at the gas chambers.

Go right ahead and tell that to Peter, Milo and Justin. Let me know if they see the pink elephant.

Quote:

And I've seen decades of Log Cabin Republicans waiting to be acknowledged by the Republican Party, while the latter still puts anti-LGBTQ stumpers as nominees, speakers, and convocators.

Your analogy doesn’t hold because those Log Cabin guys would acknowledge they see what you see. There is no hallucination in your second example.

But like I said, go right ahead and ask Peter, Milo and Justin if they see the pink elephant.

Quote:


Pence's gay conversion isn't a a pink elephant.

Yes it is. And you even provided the proof the pink elephant does not exist.

Quote:


Conversion therapy is a controversial practice that seeks to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay to to straight. It’s banned in five states including California, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont and New Jersey.
When asked about the claim, Newsom’s spokesman pointed to Pence’s own words. During his first successful run for Congress in 2000, Pence wrote on his campaign website, under a section called Strengthening the American Family:
"Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior."
Also on the website, Pence wrote: "Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage." And "Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s [sic] as a 'discreet [sic] and insular minority' entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities."
...

Great, so let’s look at the statement you bolded, only I am going to turn on my reading magnification glasses…just a moment…

"Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to THOSE SEEKING TO CHANGE THEIR SEXUAL BEHAVIOR."

The pink elephant doesn't exist because one, Pence is not Trump, and two, lucky7 isn't volunteering to be Pence's guinea pig.

Question…are Peter, Milo and Justin seeking to change their sexual behavior? Answer : No. That is why they don’t see the pink elephant. You have to volunteer. Lucky7 has been brainwashed into worrying about something that doesn’t affect him whatsoever.

This Presidential election is about far more important topics than whether the government is going waste money on this dubious project.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Knight who says Meh wrote:
So you support Trump because of his willingness to start a twitter war with the 1%?
Guy Humual wrote:
I'm not sure how you figure Trump is at war with the 1%
thejeff wrote:

Yeah, the idea that Trump is the enemy of the 1% is kind of mindboggling.

Exactly! It is mindboggling.

Donald Trump was born into the 1%. He is a child of the elite. He has always been welcome in the inner circles of both political parties.

He lives in the same ultra-elite wealthy communities with their own private walls to keep the rest of us out.

And yet he turned around, and stabbed his own kind, my enemies, in the back.

It was glorious.

We are betrayed on a regular basis, but that rarely happens to the elite.

Donald Trump is a traitor to his class, and that is why I am voting for him.

Guy Humual wrote:
But supposing Trump is at war with them, you're suggesting that he's got some secret agenda to fight these people once in office? Like how he's planning to jail Hilary Clinton? I must say that as much as I dislike the Koch brothers I wouldn't want to see a special tribunal that's appointed to put them behind bars.

I have no idea if he has a secret agenda to fight them once in office. I just know he is fighting them tooth and nail right now. And as long as he does that I will back him.

Trump pledged that if President he would order his attorney general to investigate Hillary Clinton. That would be done through a special prosecutor, not a “special tribunal”. Special prosecutors handle it through our court system with the standard legal rights and protections. If Hillary Clinton broke the law, she should be prosecuted and a jury should determine her fate. The same thing for you, me, the Koch brothers and Donald Trump. That is called the rule of law.

Refusing to prosecute someone when they break the law is a violation of the rule of law.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Yeah the 1% is really gonna hate all those tax cuts and deregulation that Trump is promising.
thejeff wrote:

But look at the numbers: How much would Trump's kids save from the estate tax cuts he wants? How much would the Koch brother's heirs? They might want someone more pliable, but they'll settle.

Billionaires don’t care about tax cuts and use trusts to evade estate taxes. They make far more money with their government contracts. Higher taxes to the government means more money available for billionaires looking to sell products and services to government.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Nah, he's collateral damage, right?

Who cares about the damage to LGBTQ kids? Or Latinos? Or Muslims? Or women?
And really Scott Adams? The whole "master persuader" thing? Scott's really gone down the rabbit hole.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:

As a quote to support the position that Trump isn't the next Hitler, that bit from Scott Adams is pretty useless. It cuts out all his actual arguments (the other posts he references in which he supposedly explains mountains of credible evidence away as confirmation bias), leaving nothing behind but begging the question.

"Trump isn't the next Hitler, because that's unlikely, and if only some of us believe in something unlikely, it probably isn't true."

Peter Thiel, Milo Yiannopoulos, Justin Raimondo

All three are gay men. The first two are supporting Trump, the third is cheering him on.

None of them see this “gay conversion therapy” pink elephant. If they don’t see it, it isn’t there. If anyone can convince even one of those three men to see it, then I will accept I have been proven wrong.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
lucky7 wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
lucky7 wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, why am I your enemy?
Am I speaking to George Soros, Mark Cuban or the Koch brothers?

You're speaking to a gay 16-year-old kid whom Herr Drumpf believes it's okay to treat with "gay conversion therapy."

Literally 90% of what he's doing is aligned against middle-and-lower class folks like me who just want a better country to live in. Are they your enemies?

I will respond with a quote from Scott Adams...


As a trained persuader, I can see the “Trump is Hitler” illusion for what it is. Where you might see a mountain of credible evidence to support your illusion, I see nothing but confirmation bias on your part. I have detailed that confirmation bias in other posts.

Remember my rule from above. If you see something unlikely – such as a new Hitler rising in the midst of America – and I see nothing remotely like that – I’m almost certainly right and you’re almost certainly having the illusion. I say that because the person who sees the unlikely addition to reality is the one experiencing the illusion nearly every time. Trump as Hitler-in-America is an addition to reality that only some can see. It is a pink elephant. It is a classic hallucination.

Quote:

A quick Google search shows that George Soros seems like a decent sort, Mark Cuban too. But the Koch brothers? They're not being targeted by Trump.

Check his Twitter feed

"I turned down a meeting with Charles and David Koch. Much better for them to meet with the puppets of politics, they will do much better!"

Quote:


Upholding Citizens United is the devil in the details here, and it's coated with jingoism and false morality. If standing against that and loving who I love makes me your enemy, then I'm proud to consider myself as such, Mr. NPC Dave.

I know this is hard to accept when you are sixteen, but be aware that the world does not revolve around you. I don't know you and I wasn't talking about you. You are not the 1%.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
lucky7 wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, why am I your enemy?

Am I speaking to George Soros, Mark Cuban or the Koch brothers?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:


Which "people in politics" have you seen "fold when the media turns against them?" Please offer specific examples.

Martin O'Malley, Mitt Romney, Robert Pittenger

Quote:

Also, when did fighting dirtier become courageous?

When the side fighting dirtier is outnumbered.

Quote:
Cowards fight dirty.

No, cowards run away.

Caineach wrote:
Perhaps because cheering him on is encouraging his sexual assaults.

If that is true then cheering on Hillary is encouraging Bill Clinton's sexual assaults. Catch 22.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Yeah, it's a nice change to see someone attack Hillary for once. That's really never happened before in politics.

I was talking more about the 1% who pay Hillary. But it is nice to see someone attack Hillary without making sure their hands are wrapped in fluffy pillows first.

Pan wrote:
He wants a candidate with no dignity. The base has been begging for it.

I want a good fight based, at the fundamental level, on principle. This election, I got what I wanted in spades. Even if the principles are buried under avalanches of rhetoric and attacks.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Also, when did fighting dirtier become courageous?
When it's your hero that does it. It's not an uncommon reversal when you have a movie where your hero is a guerrilla soldier like Rambo, or Thomas Beckett in The Sniper series of movies. Lots of things people find unspeakable become acceptable against a politically acceptable target

Exactly!

Trump brought Juanita Broaddrick and the other women into the second debate, and I saw the look on Bill Clinton's face when he had to sit in the same room with them. Bill had to pay $850,000 years ago to keep a lawsuit from taking depositions from those women, and now he had to sit there with that humiliation on national television.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:


First I wish to salute your courage in admitting here that you are Republican and that you support Trump.

Thanks.

Quote:


As you might have noticed the posters here are vastly anti-Trump and more than a few are anti-Republican IMO

That said, I think you are mistaken if you believe that Trump is a Republican. What Trump is is the worst kind of opportunist and demagogue. He does not care one iota for political stances and topics. He only cares about people cheering him and maybe getting him elected. He is high on a mad power rush and will do and say anything to keep experiencing it

It does not show courage but an addict's mad cravings

And what enemies of yours are you talking about ? Because Trump is vituperating against so many people that it is hard to keep count. And I believe that many of his supporters indeed believe that he rightly denounce their own enemies. Except that if they were to compare their opinions, they would realize that they actually do not agree on who these enemies are

But Trump does not care about this....

This doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Trump is a Republican. I don't care about Republicans or the Republican party. Ron Paul is one of the few Republicans I have voted for.

You are correct that Trump is an opportunist, you are correct that he cares about people cheering him on and about winning. I completely agree that Trump is doing this for himself and his own ego.

And I don't care.

Because what he happens to be doing is completely aligned against my enemies. And as long as he is striking at my enemies, I will support and ally with him. If he chooses to betray me in the future, that makes him no different than any other politician who sells me out. I walk away if and when that happens.

As for what enemies I am talking about, I am talking about the 1%.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

For myself, I have thrown in my lot for Trump. I was waiting to see what bombshell would be thrown in October that would put Trump's back to the wall. I wanted to see if he would quit when it would look hopeless. Meaning actually quit the race or give up and just go through the motions until election day.

And he didn't quit. He actually fought back. For the first time in a long time, a Republican is actually fighting back harder than his Democrat opponent. He is fighting dirtier too.

So I respect his courage. Too many people in politics fold when the media turns against them, but Trump is someone who won't and he hits back when someone hits him.

He keeps hitting my enemies so how can I not cheer him on.

I still think there is another grenade coming in November designed to hit when there is no adequate time to respond. I also think the election will be close, but I won't call it for Trump. Not when the betting sites have him at 4:1 odds or longer.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Dungeon #140 Appendix 1 pages 46-47


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Some fixes and notes for Ulioth himself...

First, Ulioth's dominate person ability requires a DC 18 Will save, not DC 16. This is due to his Charisma bonus which is two points higher than the standard kopru.

Second, Ulioth has the Thrall of Demogorgon prestige class which is found in the D&D 3.0 hardcover Book of Vile Darkness. However, a few months after this issue of Dungeon Magazine was released, a 3.5 update to the Thrall of Demogorgon prestige class was published in Dragon Magazine #357. If you wish to use this update for Ulioth, everything is the same except that the 3.5 version of the Thrall of Demogorgon prestige class uses a good Will save progression rather than the original poor Will save progression. Thus, Ulioth's new Will save is +22, improved from the original +19.

Lastly, the save DC for Ulioth's hypnosis and touch of fear supernatural abilities are based on both his thrall prestige class levels(+4) and his Charisma bonus(+2). The values are correct as listed.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

This is the last trap I will be adding, and it is located in the Tlaloc's Crater encounter.

Tlaloc's Tear itself had some potent magical defenses inscribed upon it when it was used by the Olman long ago to defeat the aboleth. Most of those atrophied over the centuries, but one magical trap remains, a freezing sphere spell that is triggered when someone damages Tlaloc's Tear. The first time anyone inflicts damage upon it, the freezing sphere spell is cast targeting the five foot square where the attack originated from. The spell has the range specified in the Players Handbook, which is 840 feet. If the target square is out of range it will target the spell as close as possible to the target at the limit of its range. There is a 30% chance the spell will scatter slightly and actually hit a random five foot square adjacent to the original target square.

Freezing Sphere Trap : CR 7; magic device; spell trigger; no reset; spell effect (freezing sphere, 11th-level wizard, 11d6 cold damage); Search DC 31; Disable Device DC 31.

Optionally, this spell and perhaps a few other spells tied to water and/or cold are inscribed over the surface of Tlaloc's Tear. Anyone who cares to make the minimal effort can preserve these inscriptions even as Tlaloc's Tear is destroyed. Preserving the stone fragments carrying these inscriptions in this manner allows a wizard to use them as standard scrolls to be copied into a spellbook or provide a one-shot spell casting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

The kopru have carved out a small domain "along the eastern wall of Golismorga, centered on an ancient aboleth ziggurat". It is up to the DM how large an area and how many additional buildings the kopru occupy, but as described the kopru will have an established perimeter to the north, west and south.

Many of the buildings are very close together making it impossible for the kopru to establish clear lines of sight of a comfortable distance for their sentries. This will allow the PCs to get close to observe the ziggurat and kopru settlement by squeezing between buildings in what are effectively narrow alleyways. The kopru have established traps, however, to guard against such approaches. They have surgically grafted sea urchin spines tipped with a potent poison into the living flesh of the buildings. The PCs will have to contend with at least one of these traps to reach an observation point where they can safely observe the kopru.

The kopru check these traps once per day, which they can safely do through their mental powers when in close proximity of the trap. Should they find one of the traps has been triggered they will reset it but not raise any alarm. Should a second trap be triggered by the PCs later on, the kopru will be much more wary and patrols will increase around the ziggurat. That won't matter, of course, should the PCs flood Golismorga.

Fusillade of Deep Sea Urchin Spines(Darts)
CR 10; mechanical; location trigger; manual reset; Atk +18 ranged (1d4+1 plus poison, urchin spine darts); poison (unique deep sea urchin cultivated by the kopru, DC 15 Fortitude save resists, 1d4 Con/ 1d6 Con); multiple targets (1d8 quill darts per target in a 10-ft.-by-10-ft. area); Search DC 32; Disable Device DC 29

If you want to modify this trap, here is how I built it. I used the CR 7 Fusillade of Greenblood Oil Dart trap as a baseline. I upped the Search DC from 25 to 32 which is +1 CR. I then upgraded the poison in comparison to greenblood oil and black adder venom which are both +1 CR, this poison cultivated by the kopru is approximately two points higher so +3 CR.

The kopru in Golismorga prefer to use their natural weapons but if you opt to give some of them melee weapons, you could have these kopru apply this poison to those weapons.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

This post deals with a some of the encounters in Golismorga in order to make them a little more challenging. Obviously only use these if your players are having an easy time in the city.

1) Kopru Scouts

The Paizo team admitted that this encounter, a small kopru scouting party accompanied by troglodyte palanquin bearers, is not much of a challenge for 11th level characters. In the sidebar Scaling the Adventure (page 66), it suggests for higher level parties to add a dark naga to the kopru scouting party. That would be one way to make this battle more challenging.

Another possibility is to give one or more of the kopru a potion of eagle’s splendor. Drinking the potion boosts the DC Will save against the kopru’s dominate person by +2. But don’t bother with this option if the party makes use of protection from evil spells which blocks the kopru from controlling their victim for the duration of the spell.

2) Scholarly Devourer

It suggests that the devourer Rakis-Ka will attempt a peaceful interaction with the PCs but later returns to stalk and attack them. Should that scenario play out, you can increase the difficulty of the encounter by having the devourer use its lesser planar ally spell-like ability to collect some additional support. Suitable creatures would be nightmares from the Monster Manual or canoloths from the Monster Manual III.

3) Shaboath Pools

It mentions in the Aboleth Master Glyphs sidebar (page 50) that the glyphs in Golismorga have long since been ruined. You could instead have the PCs come across one of the glyphs still working and active when they have an encounter, such as the battle against the Shaboath golems. One example would be the glyph of law which inflicts a minor penalty on all nonlawful creatures within thirty feet. As the golems in this encounter are of neutral alignment, the pools could be just outside the range of the glyph, but the golems may need to move into range during the battle at which point they are affected just like the PCs.

If you have the 3.5E hardcover Lords of Madness (or the 2E Night Below box set where they first appeared), you can get the specific details on the aboleth glyphs. Trivia note... the aboleth golems were originally called Shaboath golems because they came from the aboleth city of Shaboath documented in Night Below.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

The Sloughed Skin encounter as described in the Golismorga section (p 55) is incomplete.

Quote:


...triggering an avalanche of decaying fleshlike resin. The resulting slide is 80 feet wide with a 40 foot bury zone in the center and a 20 foot slide zone on either side. Treat this as a normal avalanche, as detailed on page 90 of the Dungeon Master's Guide...

The rules for the avalanche are on page 90, but what is incomplete are clear rules on how PCs who are buried can get free by themselves or with help.

For that take a look at page 66 of the DMG, the Cave-ins and Collapses section. That covers how a PC can free themselves or how another can free them. The only thing to modify is that for a cave-in the rules state the PC will be buried under about 2000 pounds of rock in their 5x5 foot square. Fortunately, the 3.5 D&D Frostburn book covered this rule again when it came to snow. There it suggests 500 pounds of snow that the buried PC must escape. So you can use those rules and assume that the resin weighs as much as the snow, or perhaps a bit more.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

This error was already mentioned years ago by a previous poster, I will just add in an explanation for the errata...

Location J. Hall of the Dreamers

This is the Blackfang Rhagodessa encounter, and the blackfang rhagodessa is an advanced rhagodessa, which was updated to 3.5 rules in Dungeon Magazine #139. In that issue, the rhagodessa is a CR2 4HD vermin of Medium size. The blackfang rhagodessa is advanced to the maximum of 12 HD and this also makes them Large size. The error in the stat block is the blackfang rhagodessa is listed as CR9. There is just no way it is CR9. According to the d20/3.5 rules, the CR is adjusted as follows...

+1 CR for every 4HD advancement of a vermin type (+2 total)
+1 CR for increasing to Large size

So these guys should be CR5. You can argue for CR6 based on their higher than average hit points and because they picked up a +5 to bonus to Constitution instead of the usual +4, which in their case moves them from Con 13(original rhagodessa) to Con 18(blackfang) and that lets them pick up an extra 36hp instead of 24hp.

So CR 5 or CR 6, no higher.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

This next trap can be placed anywhere after location I. Temple of the Ancient Ones but before actually reaching Golismorga. I put it one hundred yards beyond location I. The kopru have inscribed a glyph of warding in a narrow section of tunnel that the PCs must enter which is about ten feet in diameter. The glyph can be either on the ceiling or on the floor obscured by some loose rubble. It activates as soon as a PC passes over it or underneath it.

Glyph of Warding(Blast): CR6, spell, spell trigger, no reset, spell effect (glyph of warding [blast], caster level 16, 8d8 sonic damage, DC 14 reflex save for half damage), multiple targets (all targets within 5 ft), Search DC 28, Disable Device DC 28.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

As good as The Lightless Depths is, one thing it completely lacks is any traps whatsoever. That won't fly for campaigns that have a PC rogue, no one likes having their niche ignored for an entire adventure. So I added a few traps, the first one at the troglodyte cavern entrance...

A1. Putrid Pier

The troglodytes have rigged the central 10 ten foot by 20 foot section of their pier to collapse when the weight of more than one Medium size creature walks upon that section at a time. The pirates normally call out and attract the attention of the troglodyte emissaries who bring out some reinforcing boards and slide them into place to temporarily disarm the trap. If the trap does trigger, the entire section collapses except the for the solitary poles which hold the burning torches. Anyone who makes the reflex save is able to jump to one of the two stable sections of the pier at opposite ends, whichever end the character is closest to. Anyone falling into the water lands amidst a jellyfish swarm (see Stormwrack, p161-162), as the troglodytes have found a way to draw jellyfish to their pier as an additional defense.

Collapsing pier trap: CR6, mechanical, location trigger, no reset, DC 20 reflex save avoids, fall into the water and jellyfish swarms, multiple targets, Search DC 25, Disable Device DC 18.

1 to 50 of 627 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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