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

Scott Betts's page

Goblin Squad Member. 7,156 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,156 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Bernie Bros were a very real thing, but that's probably because this election was post...well, I'm not supposed to talk about that, but this election has been the first major one of its kind since the "online hatemob" techniques really got perfected. It wasn't Bernie's fault, but it was real and distinct all the same. "Bernie Bros", as the media dubbed them (the media loved to paint Sanders as the "white dude" candidate, as opposed to the "young people" candidate), were actually doxxing superdelegates. They were based on the uglier corners of Reddit and 4Chan, and referred to him as a "cuck" the moment he dared endorse Hillary. It wasn't the same magnitude as the "Obama Boys".

I didn't like how much focus Bernie Bros got compared to the problems in Clinton's campaign, which, as we've known for a while, also employed plenty of unpleasant measures, but it also bugs me when people act like the Bernie Bros were just "politics as usual". Bernie has acquired some seriously s*$$ty followers.

I would not self-identify as a Bernie Bro so easily, Belulzebub. They're asshats.

The accepted term for this subgroup of people is the alt-right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belulzebub wrote:
I mean us 'Bernie Bros' did just get a pretty huge email leak confirming that the suspicions of corruption and election rigging were true

No, you didn't. You got a scant handful of bits and pieces of evidence that certain people within the party might have personally favored one candidate over the other (SHOCK), but nothing that indicates actual election rigging.

You guys just really, really want to find something external to blame your loss on. You lost because your candidate's campaign wasn't popular enough. That's all. Learn from it and move on, and vote like a responsible adult.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Does anyone actually know a hillary supporter? It's kinda weird.

There are multiple Clinton supporters in this thread.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Redneckdevil wrote:
From the wiki links showing the polls scandles,

Didn't happen.

Quote:
to Bernie never having a chance,

He had a chance. He just lost.

Quote:
.....to how the AG has handle the case,

The AG didn't handle the case - it deferred to the judgment of the FBI.

Quote:
to her supporting TPP until it showed it was hurting her and she flipped on it but then has a VP who is in support of it it seems....

Kaine previously was in support of the TPP, but has recently agreed to oppose it.

And, seriously, why would you criticize a politician for changing their stance on something in the face of public opposition? Their job is to represent the people. If you get upset when politicians adopt a stance you want them to adopt, you're not giving them any incentive to change.

Quote:
I'm just disgusted at both sides candiadates. Both of them are equally horrendous in different ways.

Oh come on.

Quote:
I'd like to vote for Gary Johnson because he's the only one who I can feel morally okay with voting but the way it is right now neck to neck, tbh I feel like I'm just throwing my vote in the trash. Sigh.

If you vote third party, you are.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The former Bush II voter railing against third party voters sixteen years later? Still ironic.

Twelve years ago. I wasn't of age for the 2000 election. But thanks so much for remembering!


Sharoth wrote:
IMHO the majority of the RNP are not anchored in reality. Trump is just playing into that fantasy land view. Sadly, there were more than a few things that Trump said that I at least partially agreed with. But he and the Republican party are too crazy for my tastes.

What things did he say that you found any agreement in? Policy-wise, I mean. Obviously some of his rhetoric doesn't allow much room for disagreement.


Holy balls that guy is terrifying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Belulzebub wrote:
Which brings us back to the endorsement - he endorsed, he didn't concede. That's a small but important distinction. By not conceding he keeps his delegates and will have them at the Convention next week.

So, no.

Yes, he endorsed Clinton. Enthusiastically.

No, he didn't concede.

No, that isn't an important distinction.

No one ever concedes during a primary contest. Typically, they simply suspend their campaign - a tacit acknowledgement that they have lost, while still allowing them to conduct campaign business.

What Sanders did in not conceding wasn't meaningful in any way. It's exactly what everyone else does.

If you think that Sanders endorsed just so he could keep his delegates, you never understood Sanders at all. He endorsed Clinton because he genuinely wants her to become President.

Quote:
And it allowed him to keep his delegates while drafting the platform (who, it should be noted, are the ones responsible for the $15 minimum wage and got narrowly voted down on fracking and TPP).

This was taken care of before his endorsement. If what you said were true, he could have conceded when he endorsed and everything would have been fine.

Quote:
If he'd conceded, I'd grant you he sold out.

Why? Conceding wouldn't have changed anything in terms of what he could accomplish policy-wise. And besides, no one concedes.

Quote:
Will it be enough for me to vote for Hillary? Probably not. But as much as my refusal to vote for Hillary will be lambasted as an obsession with 'purity,' I never thought Bernie was perfect. But he was a candidate close enough that I could, in fairly good conscience, vote for him - even if that conscience had to wrestle with the use of drones and refusal to use the word 'apartheid' no matter how much the treatment of Palestinians calls for it. But Hillary has just done too much and falls far too short. (BTW, you can stop with the 'Voted the same 93% of the time' statistic. Most votes are symbolic or roll call votes - they're utterly meaningless. Ideologically speaking, they're pretty far apart as a neoliberal and a Social Democrat, even if they're nearer than Trump and Sanders.)

Nonsense.

A 93% voting record alignment is remarkable. In fact, no two candidates for President during the 2015/16 election cycle who served in the Senate had a voting alignment closer than Clinton and Sanders did.

OnTheIssues.org rates both Clinton and Sanders as "Hard-Core Liberals." No, they aren't in perfect agreement, but the reality is that they both want the country to move in the same direction. The only difference is that one of them wants the magnitude of that movement to be larger.

You shouldn't just be voting for Clinton - and yes, even you in your safely Red State - you should be campaigning for her.

Quote:
Which is the case for MOST of the people who are talking about voting 3rd party so typically your moralizing about how they're going to wreck the country by not voting for the candidate you prefer is - well, it's kind of ironic, all things considered.

This has literally happened in our lifetime. So, no. Not ironic at all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At this point, I'm relatively certain that if someone pulled the fire alarm before tonight got underway and no one got to speak, RNC staff would consider it a good night.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, it's not a happy time to be a conservative in America (or just about anywhere, for that matter). If you put yourself in their shoes, things are pretty bleak and have been for a while. The world at large doesn't put up with them and their beliefs anymore. Where they were once at least tolerated, they're shamed and marginalized instead. I'm sure they feel like their zone of comfort is rapidly shrinking around them, and I'm sure that's scary as hell to a lot of conservatives.

None of this is to say they don't deserve the experience they're going through. They absolutely do deserve it. But it's easy to understand why they're angry, why they're frustrated, why they feel like nothing is going their way, and why they want someone capable of throwing a punch in their name, even if it's just punching a metaphorical wall.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kolokotroni wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:
Any system that could allow someone to win with somewhere like 22% of the vote while their opponent gets 88% of the vote (and yes this can happen, even if it is unlikely)
Somehow I doubt that...
Win the smallest states by exactly one vote from Wyoming to New Jersey. Its less then 25% of the voting population but more then half the electoral votes.

I was just being a jerk and referencing your 110% popular vote total. ;P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
To be honest, I'm so burned out by this election, I just want it to be over. I do care about who wins, but not nearly as much as I just want this crapfest to be over for another four years.

I can't imagine a third-party supporter ever enjoying an election cycle. It seems like a recipe for consistent disappointment.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Any system that could allow someone to win with somewhere like 22% of the vote while their opponent gets 88% of the vote (and yes this can happen, even if it is unlikely)

Somehow I doubt that...


Krensky wrote:
I can't remeber the last few, but isn't there usually a little more "this is how great our guy is" to go with the "the other guy is the devil incarate"?

Yes. You can expect a lot more celebration of the nominee (and VP pick) at the DNC next week. There will still be plenty of (very well-supported) Trump bashing, I'm sure, but I expect for the most part it will be a lot more genuinely enthusiastic and optimistic, and less hateful and bitter than what we've been seeing over the last couple of days.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
I really liked Chris Cristie's witch trial for Hillary. There is just something about a large mob of lunatics chanting "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" that makes me feel good about democracy.

Sadly, all I could think about watching that was whether it would sound any different if the crowd were filled with holdout Sanders supporters...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Oh, right, on topic. The Johnson has officially inflated to a fat 13.

Again, no, he hasn't.

And man, that was lurid.

Quote:
He'll be pushing his way into the debates soon enough.

No, he probably won't be. He would literally need to double his support. It's akin to claiming that Clinton will be polling at 90% soon enough.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:

I just think it's funny that people are making such a big deal out of it in this case.

Most politicians have been accused of plagiarism at one time or another - including both the current President and VP. And in many cases it's probably at least partially true - where the writers looked over previous successful speeches for inspiration etc.

It doesn't bother me as an ethical breach. That simply isn't a big deal to me.

It's remarkable because it reflects on how the Trump campaign operates, functionally. This is one of the most high-profile speeches of the year for the campaign and the party, and somehow they managed to plagiarize an entire paragraph talking about hard work and integrity from their opposing team's analogue. I'm sure the question on every RNC staffer's mind this morning is, "How could this have even happened?"


Boy, this has been a weird convention.

The RNC is always strange, but man are they ever going for the world record this year.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
What option is there then, if you refuse to hold your nose and pick one?

No meaningful one. Hold your nose, and pick one. Or don't hold your nose, and accept that you live in a sociopolitical environment predicated on compromise, and that to view your choice as distasteful or unpleasant is to miss the entire point of exercising democratic power. And then pick one.

If you're not a fan of either major party candidate, vote like a responsible adult and then spend the next 4 or 8 years working as an organizer within one of the major parties to shape policy, agenda, and candidacy. Your vote on election day is actually the least significant political tool you possess as a citizen.

Quote:
Maybe we have a 3rd party, and they siphon enough votes from each person that no one gets enough electoral votes to win? Would we get a do-over at that point? Or would the one with the majority of electoral votes still win?

Long story short - if no party receives 270+ electoral votes, Donald Trump becomes President.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

If he's seriously doubled down with Pence, I can't vote for that kind of draconian social policy.

Johnson it is.

Your vote for Johnson isn't the best way to prevent those draconian social policies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
GJ is up to 12% now...only 3 more to make the debates...

No, he isn't. He's at 7% in aggregate poll tracking. That's the only figure that matters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I think I've met one, at most, two Bernie supporters that reverted to right-wing cretinism after they realized Bernie was going to rally behind Hillary. Ymmv.

I don't know that anyone was saying that Sanders supporters themselves were unmasking themselves as alt-right Trump supporters. Rather, the collapse of the Sanders movement has created an opportunity for the messaging of the alt-right movement to be better heard, and they've taken advantage of it. Places like reddit that were formerly infamous for non-stop obnoxious Sanders cheerleading are now a stomping ground for vocal Trump supporters. (Outside of /r/The_Donald, which was always full of vocal Trump supporters.) It's easy to mistake the two groups (Sanders supporters and Trump supporters) as having a lot of membership crossover, but I really don't think that's the case (I certainly hope it isn't). Rather, there just happens to be a lot of uncoordinated cooperation between the two groups to spread stories damaging to the Clinton campaign.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
NO ONE is asking for purity, we just want someone who didn't go to Trumps third wedding, because he gave her money, so she owed him.

Even if you take Trump at his word (which, I mean, come on) what he actually said was that she attended his wedding because he donated to the Clinton Foundation. There is nothing improper about being happy to attend the wedding of someone who donates to your non-profit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

An interesting thesis and discussion of how we got here:

The Atlantic - How American Politics Went Insane by Jonathan Rauch.

Having worked in local politics I could certainly see some of what Mr Rauch is talking about. How about you Scott?

I'll have to take some time to read through it after I finish running my Kingmaker game tonight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
It's fascinating to watch the Sanders crowd transmutate into the Fox News crowd.

I think it's probably the case that a lot of that "transmuting" is actually the emergence of the alt-right from the woodwork to fill the noise vacuum created by the collapse of the Sanders movement.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
But what about those who contribute equally to both? Which seems to be almost all the top two dozen largest publicly traded corporations? How do you explain that?

What do you mean how do I explain that? Those company totals are based largely on contributions by individual employees. Of course any sufficiently large company is going to have some employees who donate to one party and some who donate to the other.

Quote:
Also, I don't really care what Hillary, or most politicians have to say, because they have not proven themselves trustworthy. I care what they do when in MATTERS. Anyone can say nice things, or take a stand when it doesn't matter, but when it counts, what do they do? Hillary (and Obama) talk a strong leftist game, but they play their hand for the interests of the rich.

Then you should be looking at their records. I suggest taking a serious look at OnTheIssues' page on Clinton. I expect it will not line up nicely with your preconceived notions about who she is as a politician.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rednal wrote:
One note: Yes, Hillary has more delegates and such, enough to vote to get her way... but, clearly, a very sizable part of her political party has other ideas. You don't bring a party together by running roughshod over people just because you can, and she'd probably do well to address the concerns of Sanders' supporters on at least some issues. If you can't find a good balance between the people who currently agree with you and the people who don't, you're probably not fit to be President in the first place.

And you don't bring people together by ignoring the results of the actual primary runs upon a whim. Clinton won the states she won, and she played by the rules to do so. And she won more of the Party vote than Sanders did.

You don't change the rules of the game simply because you're not happy with the result.

One of the strangest moments in this primary cycle was watching the internal narrative of the Sanders grassroots movement flip on its head. Early on in the season it was thought that Sanders stood a chance of winning a pledged delegate and popular vote plurality, but ultimately losing based on superdelegate voting. The narrative was that superdelegates were undemocratic, and their will should be ignored in favor of the winner of the pledged delegate count. As it became clear that Sanders would never overcome his pledged delegate deficit, the narrative did a rapid about-face. Suddenly superdelegates were being encouraged to ignore the results of the pledged delegate total, ostensibly because Sanders was polling better against Trump in head-to-head matchups, and because Clinton was going to be indicted "any day now."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Depends where you look:

You should be looking at data in aggregate from sources with historically reliable modeling.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
I don't think it is at all out of line to question those who are ceded power in a society. This is especially true when that power is mixed with money, particularly in a capitalist society. I also note that the mixing of wealth and politics has produced serious problems around the world for thousands of years, and I would say that modern times and our country are no exception. I would also say that I view lobbying as a form of bribery, that has become accepted the way the church once accepted money for "indulgences". Modern politicians often act as Professional "pardoners" who allow the extremely wealthy to get over on the rest of society.

I'm not going to argue that cynicism has no value. It plainly does. It's a necessary piece of anyone's critical thinking toolbox.

But a lot of people see cynicism as a beneficial outlook unto itself - as though a person who is more cynical is wiser.

Obama has spoken at length on the topic of keeping cynicism in check, tempered by both reality (always), and hope (where needed). Cynicism is fashionable. It makes one look superficially world-wise and "in-the-know." But almost all of the strongly cynical viewpoints I see on the internet, especially those that float around politics, base their cynicism on an understanding of the world that is simply counter-factual.

My boss and I were just lamenting this the other day (no, we don't work in politics, but we both have in the past). A lot of people look at the donations politicians receive and think, "Just look at all those favors they have to repay!" That's nonsense. No one in politics actually thinks that way. Is it possible that some corporations make smoke-filled backroom deals with some politicians, trading favors for PAC support? Yes, it is. But the vast majority of political donations take place simply because the people donating really want that person to become President (or a Senator, or a Representative, or whatever).

Quote:
To be more specific, I would cite Hillary's use of 9/11 to justify accepting large amounts of money from wealthy Wall Street donors. As a New Yorker, and more importantly a citizen, I found that VERY offensive. Furthermore, I found her tale of going to Wall Street, and "telling those guys to knock it off!" to be preposterous, and also an insult to the intelligence of those listening. I find her associations with the Council on Foreign Relations to be completely inappropriate, and horrible for the majority of the US and world as a whole.

These are all super minor to me.

Quote:
I think she is absolutely wrong on trade and globalization, and has been for decades. I would point out her close ties to Wal-Mart, and the rise of Chinese imports/outsourcing of US jobs. The Clinton administration, the Obama administration and by her own statements her administration were all characterized by gains going to the wealthy, while the middle class lost jobs and saw wages stagnate. Is this an accident or a coincidence?

Neither. They are the deliberate result of years of careful movement by various conservative interests in both the private and public sectors. Nothing shady or conspiratorial. If it's your belief that the Democratic Party as a whole has, among its goals, increasing wealth among the wealthy and making the middle and lower classes poorer, I'm here to tell you that you're simply wrong. Almost universally, those who dedicate their lives to working in the Democratic Party and left-wing politics genuinely want to improve the wealth disparity situation.

Quote:
I could go on, but I think everyone gets the idea. Hillary does not share my values, nor do I consider her progressive, liberal, or even a leftist. There is no way I would EVER vote for her to "represent" me.

Then your definition of "progressive", "liberal", and "leftist" are out-of-step with the rest of the country. OnTheIssues, a non-partisan organization that tracks political statements and records, rates Clinton as a "hardcore liberal".

Your perception of her is based on a selective, not holistic, understanding of her political history, and simply isn't a realistic way to evaluate politicians or make voting decisions. If you're looking for someone who only makes choices you like, I encourage you to write your own name on your ballot for President. If you're looking to get things done, though, I encourage you to consider that democratic politics is fundamentally about compromise, and acknowledging that it's okay to not be happy with every outcome associated with the politicians that you support, but to still support them anyway because they remain the most practical path to accomplishing what you want accomplished.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Does any of this even look feasible?

Very no.

This election cycle has not painted a particularly kind picture of the Sanders grassroots movement's ability to forecast the outcome of events around the campaign. It's kind of astonishing how unwaveringly incorrect they have been.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Installing from a physical medium is faster and doesn't eat bandwidth, and doesn't stop you from DL'ing updates/patches afterward.
I have a 150 megabit internet connection with no bandwidth cap. That isn't even the fastest available in my area. The Witcher 3, with both expansions, clocks in at 50 gigabytes installed (I've deliberately picked a larger game, because this scenario actually favors physical purchases more the larger the game is - the trip to the store and back is a static time value, no matter the size of the game on disc). It would take me probably close to an hour to drive to a physical game store, purchase a physical copy of the game and its expansions (were its expansions sold in physical form), drive home, and complete the lengthy installation process (swapping out DVDs no fewer than five times, after all's said and done). If, instead, I purchased and downloaded the game from Steam, it would be completely installed and playable - expansions included - less than 45 minutes after I clicked the purchase button.
I am guessing you rarely need to reinstall anything...

Occasionally, but if I do it takes the click of a button. No hunting for DVDs, no swapping out discs. Just a click. My Steam library is accessible to me from any computer, I never have to fear losing access to a game I've purchased, no matter how many times I've installed and uninstalled it. And, as I noted, it's often faster for me to download and install a game from Steam's servers than it would be to install a game from a disc anyway.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
I would disagree with the value of the Democratic Platform. Or I should say, I don't think Party Platforms are anything more then lies told to fool voters.

This is far too cynical.

Quote:
As far as influencing policy, all Bernie did was add voters to Hillary. She will say a bunch of stuff, but like every candidate in the last couple of decades, she is just going to serve the corporate interests.

No, probably not.

Quote:
They paid her, and she works for them.

No, she doesn't. Certainly, money in politics is a problem, but it isn't the problem that you seem convinced it is.

Quote:
She isn't going to do a damn thing different once she gets into office, because she doesn't need to.

She does if she wants reelection. And she does if she wants to accomplish anything meaningful. Despite what you've convinced yourself of, Clinton actually is a pretty solid progressive Democrat who has done a hell of a lot to advance causes that you probably personally care about a great deal.

Quote:
She knows that people will vote for her, despite years of serving the .01%. In terms of policy, Sanders accomplished absolutely nothing.

Again, pointlessly cynical. This doesn't reflect reality at all. The party platform has meaning. And, when a party has full control of the government, you can expect very rapid movement on policies outlined in the platform.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Well, I'd hesitate to say without qualification that modern games are better, but ootherwise, yeah.
Name an old game that isn't available today that you would want to play.

I could list a number of them, largely older console games. A few PC ones come to mind as well. Skies of Arcadia, Snatcher, OGRE, etc.

You're completely missing the point though. Lots of the games on the release schedule for 2016 have been and look like they will be awesome. Lots have been horrible disappointments. Lots have been total garbage. This has always been the case, but to say that modern games are better without qualification means, for instance, that you're saying the rather mediocre Star Ocean: Integrity and Faithlessness is better than Star Ocean: The Second Story.

Don't misunderstand me - I wasn't trying to claim that every game released today is better than every game released 20 years ago. My claim is simply that the average quality of a major game release today is higher than it was in "the good old days." There are a lot of reasons for this. Massive development budgets. Huge internal QA teams. Lengthy public testing periods. Decades of additional game design thought and experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Installing from a physical medium is faster and doesn't eat bandwidth, and doesn't stop you from DL'ing updates/patches afterward.

I have a 150 megabit internet connection with no bandwidth cap. That isn't even the fastest available in my area. The Witcher 3, with both expansions, clocks in at 50 gigabytes installed (I've deliberately picked a larger game, because this scenario actually favors physical purchases more the larger the game is - the trip to the store and back is a static time value, no matter the size of the game on disc). It would take me probably close to an hour to drive to a physical game store, purchase a physical copy of the game and its expansions (were its expansions sold in physical form), drive home, and complete the lengthy installation process (swapping out DVDs no fewer than five times, after all's said and done). If, instead, I purchased and downloaded the game from Steam, it would be completely installed and playable - expansions included - less than 45 minutes after I clicked the purchase button.

And that hour that it would have taken to buy a physical copy? That hour is now mine to use however I want, because I'm not required to do anything during the download and installation process. I can go for a run, play another game, go out to eat, or anything else I care to do. If I really cared to, that hour that I get back could be used to catch up on work, which would pay for the entire cost of the game in the first place (or damn close to it).

So not only is it literally faster to buy and download online, it also returns an hour of my own time to me.

Now, I understand that this doesn't hold true for everyone. Plenty of gamers don't have a high-bandwidth internet connection. But that could be said for any number of things - high end computers, specific consoles, fancy peripherals, etc. The point is that today's world allows and enables that kind of experience for gamers, should they choose to participate.

(As a neat bit of side trivia, your typical DVD drive has an optimal read speed of 21.12 megabytes per second, or about 170 megabits per second. Someone with a 150 megabits per second internet connection can download files from a sufficiently beefy content server, like Steam, at very nearly the same speed they could transfer it off a DVD. In practice, due to optical drive seek times, transferring from discs would probably end up being significantly slower than downloading.)

All of this says nothing of the other perks of using a digital service - automatic handling of patching, no fear of losing or damaging discs, frequent and significant sales, etc.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:

The US system is designed on both sides to prevent any 'interlopers' from getting enough votes to really matter. The differing ways various states handle the Electoral College just reinforces this.

As for Sanders, it doesn't matter if he claimed earlier he would support Hillary instead. What he did was reprehensible.

He ran as the Anti-Establishment candidate on the Left and held on long enough for his opponent to be removed for legal reasons--but that ended up not happening (surprising everyone who didn't believe the system was rigged). Afterward, he turned around and threw his support (and all the money he raised from those who believed in him) behind the most Establishment person that has played the game in the past decade and a half. Sure, maybe it was 'working toward his goals' in the best way he could, but believing that the person he's supporting would actually follow through with it? Really?

This may come as a shock to you, but Sanders knows Clinton better than you do. Given the choice between your take on her and Sanders' take on her, I'm much more likely to listen to the guy who spent years working with her.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a hard time taking seriously any Sanders supporter who claims they feel betrayed, or that Sanders "sold out." He'd been telling you for months now that he would support Clinton should she win the primary. Everyone outside the Sanders crowd had been telling you the same.

Sanders did exactly what he told you he was going to do. If that comes across as a betrayal, you need to do some serious reevaluation of how you set your expectations.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Timing is irrelevant. He spent months talking about how she was wrong for America. Months. Now all of a sudden that's not true?

Welcome to election politics. When someone is your opponent, they are wrong for America, no matter how much you normally agree. It's a bit of a facade, of course, but it's just how the game is played. Once the contest is over, everyone goes back to being on civil (and sometimes even cooperative) terms.

The reality? Clinton was never actually "wrong" for America, and Sanders knew that. At worst, she simply wasn't the best choice, and even that is arguable.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I grew up purchasing games from brick-and-mortar video game stores. There is literally nothing about that experience that I miss. Absolutely everything about gaming is better today than it was fifteen or twenty years ago. I mean everything. The games are higher quality, the community is much stronger, the logistics are a cakewalk, the variety is insane, all of it is better.

And I've never thought that gaming sucked. It was always fun. But today's world is a g@&*!+ned paradise for an active gamer. The children we were could not have even imagined having it this good.


137ben wrote:
The really nonsensical part about the OP's question is that one party doesn't win "the election" in the U.S.: we can (and do) have divided government. It's actually quite likely that this year's election will see democrats regain the senate but republicans keep the house, resulting in both parties winning and losing in different races.

In the OP's defense, the thread specifically asks which party will win the presidential election.

Quote:
I know a couple Sanders-holdouts who are self-identified democrats. Or, rather, they were Sanders-holdouts last I checked with them, which was prior to yesterday's announcement from Sanders that he will be voting for Clinton.

As announcements go, not earth-shattering. He's been signaling support for Clinton for months, now. I'm actually surprised we didn't see a full-on endorsement last week. I'm sure that too will come, soon enough.


Sissyl wrote:

Without much of a struggle? That's refreshing. How do you figure? Earlier polls said "Trump is unelectable". From there, it has gone to "a few percent in favour of Clinton".

Sure, I hope Clinton will bag the election easily. But what has changed since?

It's pretty difficult, in terms of demographics, to see a path for Trump to 270 electoral votes. The fact that he is consistently losing every general election poll at this point doesn't paint a pretty picture of his chances, either (with the standard caveat that general election polling this far out is not particularly reliable).

And while Clinton is strongly disliked, she's an incredibly proficient politician and candidate. In addition to everything else, she is in her element. The last few weeks have made it clear that Trump is a fish out of water in politics.


Kryzbyn wrote:
I wouldn't qualify Bernie Sanders supporters as pumas by any stretch of the imagination.

"Party Unity My Ass" might as well be the rallying cry of the Sanders hold-out. It doesn't really matter, though. The vast majority of them will fall in line, and I expect we'll take this election without much of a struggle.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Well, the DNC will, probably. I know a lot of Dems who would not see a Hillary victory as a victory for Dems.

That's weird. Literally every Democrat I know would consider a Clinton win a victory for the party. I also know some people who wouldn't, but they go to great lengths to make it clear that they aren't Democrats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

The whole rights situation seems to me to be the perfect explanation to why intellectual property is a bad idea. Seriously, the fact that both interests own parts of the whole means no decent movie gets done? Where there could have been several, with budgets and with a hope of success?

Good thing we have intellectual property laws.

If intellectual property laws didn't exist, it's doubtful that any movie would be made at all, decent or otherwise.


Daniel Yeatman wrote:
For the record, I got the game running today on Andy Android Emulator, and it runs perfectly. I'm quite impressed, but then again it is Obsidian we're talking about here. :D

Nothing but love for my friends at Obsidian, but no one would judge you for being impressed that an Obsidian game runs perfectly.


Quote:
We're moving the launch day for Pathfinder Adventures to April 26.

Life. Ruined.


Alex Martin wrote:
lucky7 wrote:

6 hairstyles.

30 neck tattoos.

What's bizarre about that to me is that it's not like you can even show it off well (unless one of the DLCs will be The Division: Summer Edition). Your character is covered in winter gear like 90%. Put on a scarf, and it really is a pointless add.

Yeah, this bugged me for all of thirty seconds, and then I started playing and realized I will almost never see my face. Even the cutscenes sort of stop after the first few missions.


Yeah, the massive cooperative RPG/shooter hybrid genre really seems to have a ton of potential, and what we're seeing now (in Destiny and The Division) is really only the first generation of that genre. A couple of product iterations and this will be really incredible. Destiny could learn from The Division's tactical emphasis and open world design, and The Division could take a page (or three) out of Destiny's AI, and take cues from how Destiny has grown its end-game.

(And before someone tries to argue that games like Planetside were first, they don't feel similar at all.)


Remember, conspiracy theories almost never come in single doses. Conspiracy theory-oriented thought is systemic. If someone subscribes to one conspiracy theory, they almost certainly subscribe to many. (or will eventually subscribe to many, given time)


Anyone else picked this up yet? I blew through the beta a couple weeks ago and liked what I'd seen well enough to buy into the full game. I'm loving the cover mechanics, some of the most intuitive I've ever seen. Customization feels good, the missions are reasonably varied so far, and it feels like there's a lot to do. Complaints are that crafting feels a little thin and pointless at low levels, lock picks are infuriatingly rare, and the whole utterly silent protagonist thing leaves the game feeling closer to 25% RPG / 75% action shooter than a 50/50 split.


It really looked fantastic on the Twitch livestream a couple weeks ago.

1 to 50 of 7,156 << 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.