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. 7,118 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 7,118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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.

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.

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.

Watched the stream live. It was hott.

Yes, with two 't's'.

Really impressive stuff from what has largely been the work of a five-person team.

Sixteenbiticon wrote:
Bump. Have we learned anything new about this deal?

Not yet. Obsidian is nearing the release of its first Pathfinder licensed product (the mobile app version of the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game) next month, and just released the second (and likely final) expansion to Pillars of Eternity last week. I would be surprised if they hadn't already been in the early stages of development of a more traditional Pathfinder CRPG, and I expect that they are now transitioning (or have recently transitioned) to full development. My guess? We'll hear a product announcement sometime in the next six months.

Wild predictions are fun!

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

N&N Adventuring Company

This is a different take on the gaming store. I suspect this could be a much more tenable future for the brick and mortar side of the industry, in communities large enough to support one.

I'd love to see someone launch a sustainable, respectable dues-based tabletop gaming venue/club.

I'm certain there's a lot of internal interest at Paizo in seeing a CRPG in the traditional vein come out of the Pathfinder license. I think it is no coincidence that the license was negotiated as Obsidian was building out its technology for Pillars of Eternity. I think that Obsidian probably has an internal team working on pre-development of a Pathfinder CRPG, and that team is probably transitioning to something resembling development now that The White March Pt. 2 is complete and pipeline resources are freed up. I think the plan is to leverage as many assets from PoE as is feasible to allow for what I expect will be overlapping development of a Pathfinder CRPG and whatever their next PoE title is. I would be surprised if we didn't hear anything new on that front by the end of 2016.

A lot of guesses in there. It'll be fun to see if I was close, or completely off-base.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel pretty strongly that focusing on "doing justice" to the d20 system in a CRPG is both unrealistic as well as the wrong goal altogether.

Do justice to the Pathfinder setting, to the experience of a high fantasy adventure, and to the concept of growing a character. Get those right, and complaints that the rule system isn't faithful enough won't matter.

Mind you, the mechanics need to be good; the game should still be highly usable, satisfying, and challenging. But those mechanics don't need to be chained to a legacy of rules systems developed for tabletop play.

The number of people in this thread complaining about "censorship" is really concerning.

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Norman Osborne wrote:
Aberzombie wrote:

Finally got to see the movie. It was pretty good.

One thing I don't understand is those who say it was a pure re-hash of A New Hope. I saw elements of the original trilogy throughout, and some excellent homages.

A rehash. Those folks are smoking some bad s+@+. Or they're just idiots.

Droid escapes from the Empire/First Order carrying information that both the Empire/First Order and the Rebel Alliance/Resistance. It crashes on a desert planet, where it soon meets the hero of the story, Luke/Rey. This hero is found to be force sensitive. Through the Empire/First Order's efforts to recapture the droid, the hero meets the main villain, Darth Vader/Kylo Ren. The Rebel Alliance/Resistance learns of the existence of a planet-killer weapon (apologies to Babylon 5 for stealing their terminology). The hero's mentor, Obi-Wan/Han Solo is killed by the main villain. The hero confront's the main villain, and barely escapes with his/her life. Largely through the actions of the hero, the planet-killer weapon is destroyed.

I mean, cmon? They could have at least made Jakku into something other than a desert planet. Hell, they could have made it an ICE planet and at least stolen a note from ESB.

Even if the list of similarities is substantial (and I grant you, it is), that doesn't make it a "rehash". You have to deliberately ignore the rest of the movie to come away with that take.

The movie has parallels with ANH, nothing more. It also has its fair share of perpendiculars.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Epic Meepo wrote:

You retain ownership of your house, you just can't live in your house, rent it out, modify it, sell it, or tear it down. Also, we can move into, rent out, modify, sell, or tear down your house whenever we want.

(Which is why you should never build a house on land you don't own.)

To be fair, though, you can make money off of your "house" (read: your work), and the "land" in this case is the RPG IP equivalent of Upper East Side Manhattan.

thenovalord wrote:
no eldritch blast or witch bolt in it

Mearls has confirmed that the lack of eldritch blast was an oversight. Not sure about the rest.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Krensky wrote:

I'm still not OK with the bridge scene.

I think I'm stil somewhere around Bargaining since we didn't see a body, did we?

The Star Wars Rule of Things and People Falling Out of Sight states that if something drops into a seemingly bottomless abyss, we will probably see it again unless the entire celestial body explodes soon thereafter.

Luke's lightsaber? Literally fell into a gas giant, but turned up eventually because Bespin never exploded.

Boba Fett? Swallowed by the sarlacc, but Tatooine's fine so he'll probably live through it.

Palpatine? Fell into a shaft that even a padawan could have jedi'd his way out of, if only the Death Star II hadn't blown up a few minutes later.

So unfortunately, it looks like we won't be seeing Han again in the flesh.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Rey's history may have been spoiled in a videogame ** spoiler omitted **

Nah, Angry Joe went back and played with it again; turns out he says "Curses!" after getting hit, which led to a situation where he said, "Face me!" then immediately got hit and said, "Curses!" and people (probably subconsciously looking for confirmation of their Rey-is-Luke's-daugher theory) heard, "Face me, cousin!" instead.

I'm putting the chances of the Luke connection at under 50%.

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel like every forum moderator on the planet ought to receive free tickets to the earliest showing of a film like Star Wars.

GM Niles wrote:
So, am I the only one wholiked Adam Driver's role as Kylo Ren?

No. Many (most?) critic reviews called out Driver's performance as being one of the highlights of the film.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That 97% Fresh rating with 125+ reviews in is pretty promising.

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Scooped up ten tickets to see it in IMAX 3D at 11:20 PM Friday with a bunch of friends, following by a week of my first ever honest to god paid vacation, rolling right into Christmas. Hell of a way to end 2015.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Well...I think there is a centrist policy on climate change, it just happens to fit into the measures that the democrats and such endorse. You could go far far more left on the issue, by attempting to implement things like severely reduce meat consumption, upgrade transit infrastructure to reduce car usage, increase taxes on carbon polluters, etc. It's just those things would mostly go over like a lead balloon in this country.
Ah, so Democratic position is centrist while the "left" position on climate change is what the right imagines the Democratic one to be. :)

Well, reality does have a well-known liberal bias. For example, the PoliFact fact checkers have scored both major Democratic candidates (Clinton and Sanders) well above almost all of their Republican opponents (and blow Trump out of the water). For example, of Hillary's statements, 16%, 11%, and 1% of the statements she's made have been rated Mostly False, False, or "Pants on Fire," respectively. Sanders is roughly similar -- 14%, 14%, and 0%.

For Trump, the numbers are 15%, 39%, and 22%, respectively. For Rubio, the numbers are 23%, 15%, and 2%. Jeb Bush is 26%, 6%, and 3%.

I'd love to see a Republican defend this disparity. Will they accuse Politifact of bias? Try to make it seem like Democrats' lies are fewer in number but more egregious in nature? Or do they just accept that lies are more readily accepted in the Republican Party?

In case anyone is wondering what we're talking about, this is the article that breaks down the tendency of Republican candidates to lie, and of Democratic candidates to tell the truth.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
I don't mean this as a particular insult in a personal manner, but many people believe that it is exactly that attitude - pick a party, stick with it, and shut up and do the best to support one of those two groups - that is exactly the problem, Scott.

I don't much care what the oh-so-elusive "many people" believe. I care what the people who know what they're talking about believe.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
There's no such thing as a belief that isn't ideologically imbalanced, when you break it down to a granular enough level.

Okay, but balance is a scale. There are beliefs that are more consistent with an ideology, and beliefs that are less consistent.

I was giving you far reaching examples of each category.

You didn't give me categories. You gave me a bunch of individual beliefs.

Some things are simply diametrically opposed.


You're either pro death penalty or you're anti.

Well, no. See, that's the very same black-and-white thinking you railed against earlier. There is a spectrum of beliefs, even on the death penalty issue.

You can't be "for it in some instances" because the death penalty is only applied TO some instances.

You can believe that the death penalty is justified in murder cases but not in rape cases, or in cases of anything as egregious as attempted murder, etc. Some non-western countries apply the death penalty very broadly.

It's not as if those proposing its continuance are in favor of graduating it up to the punishment for every crime.

There are some people who feel the death penalty should apply to more crimes than it does currently.

You're either for a graduated tax system, or you're not.

Okay, seriously, the black-and-white thinking isn't doing you any favors, here. You're talking about tax law, for crying out loud. If anything deserves careful, deliberate, nuanced thinking, it's this.

The particular methodology isn't the problem for flat tax enthusiasts, it's that it is not equivalent altogether. The formula isn't the problem, it's the answer to the equation. For those things that supposedly have a centrist answer, such as abortion, it all boils down to a situational yes or no.

I disagree.

Anyway, I was saving time and using examples by simplifying my beliefs.

Which you seem to be arguing for above.

As I said, we are far too complex of a society to simply paint it with a broad brush. I simply did not have the inclination to type out a massive essay about the nitty gritty of my personal beliefs to each and every specific situation, especially when it isn't going to change the mind of anyone I'm speaking to. I simply gave an example of a set of beliefs that are supposedly contradictory when they really don't have anything to do with one another beyond the overtly simplistic ideals of less or more regulation.

Your belief that they don't have anything to do with one another is probably why they appear so inconsistent to the rest of us.

I know I'm not the only person who doesn't fit into the two cookie cutter molds, and not just because MMCJawa pointed out that he also doesn't fit in the mold. The overwhelming majority of everyone I have made acquaintance with cannot identify completely with one party or another.

That doesn't mean they don't follow an internally-consistent ideology. It just isn't a party-aligned ideology. Maybe it's religion-aligned. Maybe it's culturally-aligned. The difference is that I can't think of any ideology that your particular grab bag of beliefs would fit into.

MMCJawa wrote:
Unless his plans on voting involve locking you in a basement and voting for you, why do you care?

I'm curious. Is that a problem?

Is it better if he should be just completely apathetic and not vote at all?

No, but no worse, really, either.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
As I said, I am a centrist.

That isn't what a centrist is. A centrist doesn't take far-left and far-right beliefs and squeeze them into a single ideology. In fact, centrism is opposed to exactly that.

I actually prefer not to vote third party when it can be help, but there are instances where I simply refuse to choose between the presented dynamics.

Okay, but why?

Sometimes, I vote for the lesser of two evils, especially when one is disgusting to me, such as in the most recent vote for Florida governor, but even in those cases, whomever I almost always end up voting for tends to lose. Third party is still preferable behavior to skipping voting altogether.

Well, perhaps, but that's not exactly a high bar to meet.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
While I don't share probably half of Green Tea Gamers beliefs, the political agenda he espouses isn't some bizarro unique thing. In fact I would say its pretty typical of a good (if minority) section of the populace. Hell, from what I could tell when I lived there, it matches pretty strongly with the average Republican voter in Wyoming and some other parts of the west (Although I think the Tea Party has altered that a bit). Its pretty standard libertarian.

Really? Let's break it down.

thegreenteagamer listed the following beliefs. I'll mark the ones that could be considered classically libertarian in bold.

Less gun control
Equal gay rights
Graduated tax system
Opposed to abortion rights
Minimum living wage
Increased foreign projection of military strength
Legalized drug use
Abolished death penalty
Privatized education

As you can see, of the positions he highlighted, classically libertarian beliefs are actually in the minority. Of the remaining, a number are flat-out antithetical to libertarian belief (especially opposition to abortion rights, and a minimum livable wage).

In other words, his list of policies is about as libertarian as it is any other political alignment - you might as well have called him "pretty standard progressive" for his beliefs on gay rights, a living wage, and an abolished death penalty.

As far as voting, I hate our two party system and how it forces us into choosing "the lesser of two evils" over and over again.

Hate it all you want, but vote sensibly.

I think its up to the individual voter to decide if he wants vote his conscience and go third party, or weigh political realities and vote Dem or Republican.

I don't have a lot of patience for people who use the, "I voted my conscience!" line as an excuse for avoiding making a hard decision about which choice they actually should make.

Their is nothing wrong with making either choice and we shouldn't lambast people who vote differently.

Except there is something wrong with voting third party - you're actually hurting yourself and those who believe as you do by virtue of the opportunity cost you spend voting third party when you could be voting for a major party.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
Well, not taking life on an issue by issue basis seems a lazy way to approach situations.

You can view it as lazy or efficient, but either way, you already do it. You unquestionably make extensive use of cognitive heuristics in decision making, even if you aren't conscious of it.

There is no singular black and white answer to all of the problems of society. It's much more granular than that.

Heuristics don't seek to provide a single answer, or black-and-white answers. They provide shortcuts that allow us to make decisions without thoroughly analyzing those decisions ourselves.

We are far too dynamic of a species to paint entire societies with such a broad brush as either "more regulation or less regulation". That's absolutely ludicrous.

While I agree that "less regulation is better" leads to poor outcomes, it is unquestionably a coherent worldview (not to mention a popular one).

Note that the above heuristic is pretty black-and-white. That isn't true for all heuristics, though.

If an individual is so lazy to actually find articulating their perspectives on an issue by issue basis a chore, then their opinions are likely to be uninformed and ignorant anyway.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to be able to articulate their reasons for having a particular position on every issue, on demand. You can't even do that (if you had to, you'd probably end up trying to work through your reasoning on the fly for many, many issues).

But, then I'm also in the opinion that we should revamp the system as an education based weighted oligarchical republic where education is free but non-compulsory and additional votes are granted for the more educated, so yeah, my opinions are, to say the least, a little unique, I know.

Hoo boy.

For example, every time I see people trying to tell others to get out and vote I look at them like they're crazy. Why would you want someone so ignorant that they choose not to vote at all to water down the strength of your own opinion? (Yeah, I realize the masses are more easily swayed to fall into line and support your ideals, but I mean the general push to get people to vote, rather than the party sponsored movements.)

Generally speaking, it's because they understand the audience they're speaking to, and the way that audience typically votes. If you can be certain that a majority of the audience you are encouraging will vote in the same way you will, you don't "dilute" your vote by encouraging them. You strengthen the likelihood that outcomes you desire will occur.

The Democratic Party, for example, tends to encourage general increases in voter turnout, because they understand that the majority of non-voters would support Democratic candidates if they were required to vote.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
By all means, explain to me what gun control has to do with gay equality. I'll wait. While I wait, prepare up how a graduated tax system has anything to do with abortion, privatized education anything to do with the death argument could be stretched to lump an independent living wage in with an increased military presence, since both cost a lot of money, but even that is a stretch.

They are related through common ideologies. For example, a less-regulation-is-better worldview informs an anti-gun-control and a pro-marriage-equality stance. A traditional, American religious worldview informs an anti-gun-control and an anti-marriage-equality stance. A progressive worldview informs a pro-gun-control and a pro-marriage equality stance. There isn't, to my knowledge, a coherent worldview that informs a pro-gun-control, anti-marriage-equality stance (maybe a variation of family values?).

The problem you're encountering is that people typically don't decide on where they fall on issues on an issue-by-issue basis. For most people, that's far more time-consuming than they're willing to put up with. Instead, people tend to use political heuristics to help them make decisions. A person's worldview is an example of one of these heuristics. A particular news channel or radio personality might be another, a church might be another, and so on. It's why certain combinations of (to you, seemingly unrelated) issue positions are so popular.

Your combination of views, however, doesn't appear to be informed by any single popular heuristic. In other words, it doesn't seem likely that you have a coherent worldview supporting all of those various positions.

Every member of either party is, for the most part, just the same bundle of beliefs.

That's the point of a party. They literally have declared party platforms that candidates are expected to adhere to, for the most part.

The faces change, but its the same "if you like poor people you need to hate religious people"

Okay, no. No major political group hates religious people for being religious. If you're a religious person and you feel hated, it isn't because you're a religious person.

Fergie wrote:

"They estimate that as a percent of eligible voters, turn out was: 2000, 54.2%; in 2004 60.4%; 2008 62.3%; and 2012 57.5%. These were the same figures as given by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate."

The two party system does not appeal to almost half the country.

It's a mistake to attribute every non-voter to distaste for the way our elections are run.

I'm guessing that many people who do vote do it while holding their nose, or just voting against the other guy. There is an enormous potential for something other then a republicrat, but both political parties and the media are fighting it tooth and nail. Shove the donkeys and elephants into the glue vat, turn off the Fox/MSNBC/CNN and vote for someone who actually represents you.

Again, literally counterproductive until and unless the voting system itself is changed.

Krensky wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
And before you say those people don't vote - that's what they said before Obama got elected.
Youth voter turnout was slightly up in 2008 from 2004, but it wasn't remarkable - 1992 had higher youth voter turnout figures. No one's really figured out how to get young people to reliably vote.
Australia has.

My bad - I'm referring specifically to American youth. We haven't cracked that nut.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
What about those of us who disdain political bundling of our issues as it comes with current party choices?

Do you want an actual answer to this, or are you just moaning about the political reality you live in?

The real answer is that you have to make a hard decision. There is no perfect option for you. Welcome to life. Time to make a sober evaluation of your priorities, and - based on that evaluation - choose and support the major party candidate who best represents your views.

Democracy isn't about getting exactly what you want. Democracy is about compromise.

I'm for less gun control, but want gay equality. I favor a graduated tax system, but am against abortion. I want to have a liveable minimum wage, but I'm in favor of an increased military presence. I think drugs should be legal and the death penalty abolished, but I also think we should privatize education with a voucher system because the public route has been a joke. Every one of those statements has been at odds with itself, party-wise,

A number of these statement are at odds with themselves, period. They reflect a worldview that I've never even heard of before. Why would you expect any party to support these views? Even a third party isn't going to give you that jelly bean assortment of political positions.

even though strictly speaking they're totally unrelated.

They are not totally unrelated.

Yet you tell me where I can find any party that is behind those SUPPOSEDLY opposite statements that has nothing to do with one another.

You can't, and you won't. And no political system changes are going to make that a reality.


Third parties are the only way I can find anyone who even remotely agrees with me, because as Rand Paul and his father before him showed us, if you don't tote the party line 100%, you won't get the nomination from the base, anyway, because those idiots don't care about general electability, they only care about who most appeals to their established bundles. I mean, I would vote for RP in a heartbeat, if only because he had the balls to filibuster against his own party's act and buck the party trend...even though there's things I disagree with him on, the sheet fact he's even slightly off base had me ready to cheer. I felt similarly when I found out Rubio's stance on immigration, until he went full party puppet once he hit third place.

Seriously, we need a centrist party.

Your views are not centrist. They are weirdly polar, similar to the way Paul's platform was weirdly polar.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
Libertarianism was getting a real push for a while. If the tea party was more organized it could probably be seen as a real threat to the right wing stability.

If the tea party was more organized, we'd have a Republican in the White House. Not a Libertarian.

But how do you think those two things happen? By people actually "wasting" those votes.

Eventually, yes. But it has to be preceded by an incredible surge of popular support (not *voting* support, but general support) for a third party. We haven't seen that in recent history. The mistake you're making is in assuming that if FPTP were replaced by a more reasonable voting system, people would flock to other parties as their first choice. There is no evidence for that case.

clawoftiamat wrote:
Just remember, most people supporting Trump aren't supporting his views. They are supporting the fact that he is willing to actually express his opinion no matter the political consequences. Even most of his supporters know he his crazy. They just want a politician who behaves like something other than a politician.

That seems unlikely. I think they probably support at least some portion of his views that aren't represented among the other candidates.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
The only thing about polls is they mostly interview people with landline phones, which means, let's be honest, old people.

Most polls are published with demographic info, including age bracket membership and crosstabs. If you're concerned about a poll being weighted too old, you can verify that.

Sanders has obtained a heavy following among young disenfranchised milennials

Well, sure, but why should they receive special attention in the polls? There's pretty much no group *less* likely to vote, and a poll doesn't have a lot of value if it fails to measure likely voters.

And before you say those people don't vote - that's what they said before Obama got elected.

Youth voter turnout was slightly up in 2008 from 2004, but it wasn't remarkable - 1992 had higher youth voter turnout figures. No one's really figured out how to get young people to reliably vote.

thegreenteagamer wrote:
But there's more than the immediate effect. Third party candidates can, if they make a big enough splash, have a "wave" effect that carries over to the next election. For example, Perot was all about the economy, and he was similar to Bush, who lost to Clinton by arguably enough votes where if Perot didn't enter, Bush probably would have won, or it would have been a lot closer. Next election is suddenly about economic issues. Similarly, in 2000 Nader was about the environment, and it is no coincidence that after Gore lost the environment was a big issue in 2004.

I think you're assigning attributing a false cause to these observations. There's nothing "sudden" about an election being about the economy. Neither was it necessary for the Green party to rack up votes for 2004 to be about the environment. (And, of course, the party that made the environment an issue in 2004 lost anyway, so a whole lot of good the Green surge did.)

Further, even though it's not common, there have been third party mayors, governors, representatives, and even IIRC senators.

And that's fine. If you feel there's a real chance your local candidates will be elected, go ahead and vote for them. But your vote for President should go one of two ways.

Its not as if major parties fading to obscurity as other parties take forefront hasn't happened before, or have you been seeing Whig and Federalist candidates running of late?

For that to happen, a) an existing major party must experience a crisis of support, and b) a third party must experience a simultaneous surge in support. Neither of these has taken place in recent history.

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ceaser Slaad wrote:
The problem from my point of view is that Trump isn't a real "conservative".

I think this bit, right here, is going to give you some trouble. You're trying to unilaterally define what a "real conservative" is, and then lay into Trump for not meeting your personal (and undeniably arbitrary) definition.

There are quite a lot of people, Caesar Slaad, who would tar you as a fake conservative (or, more probably, a fake libertarian) for your opposition to gay marriage, for instance. You can certainly call Trump out for championing stupid policies, but you don't seem to be in any position to determine who is and isn't a "true conservative".

That said, Trump is an absolute disaster for you and for people like you. First, whether you accept it or not, you ought to be supporting the eventual Republican nominee. Despite your protestations to the contrary, your personal politics appear to line up very close to the Republican platform. Your third party so-you-can-sleep-at-night vote isn't going to accomplish anything except handing the offset of your opportunity cost to the Democratic Party (to the tune of one vote in the Democratic nominee's favor). Given that the horse you should be backing is the Republican, anything that lowers the chances of the Republican nominee becoming President is bad for you. Trump stands almost no chance of winning the general election, so Trump becoming the nominee is really bad for you. Worse, if Trump doesn't become the nominee, and (through the benevolent intervention of God himself) decides to run anyway as an independent candidate, the Republican nominee stands no chance at all of winning.

For the Republican Party to have even a long shot at the presidency, a) Donald Trump must lose the primary, b) Donald Trump must choose not to run as an independent, and c) the Republican Party must nominate Rubio. Even then, it will be an uphill climb. If any of these things fail to occur, you are looking at what is almost certainly another 8 years of Democratic presidency.

I'm as staunch a Democrat as they come, so this piece of advice is essentially charity: The best thing you can do for yourself in this election is to register as a Republican and vote for Marco Rubio in your state's primary.

Queen Moragan wrote:

Seriously, Caineach.

If you were to bail out of an airplace that was going to crash or explode and kill you. Do you think it would be legal for someone to shoot you while you float down to the ground?

If you believe it is, then please explain how so.

That's not how law works. It is not the case that all actions are presumed illegal and then explicitly made legal. On the contrary, all actions are presumed legal, and then certain actions are explicitly made illegal. So it's problematic to ask someone to prove or explain why something is legal. A much more reasonable way to go about it would be for the person asserting that something is illegal (i.e., you) to cite the relevant law that makes it illegal. You should be able to do that.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Tabasco is arguably just as hot than Cholula, but it tastes like bile

Wow, I really expected that comparison to go the other way.

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:
IMO the establishment republicans are gutless.

The alternative is non-establishment Republicans, who are as brainless as the establishment ones are gutless. I'd much rather the opposition be led by smart people with no spine than by stupid people with balls of steel.

LazarX wrote:
Clinton's current measure of "liberalism" is mainly on positions that she's evolved since becoming the 2.0 version of a Presidential candidate. Clinton 1.0 was considerably more right-wing, and she's still very much a hawk when it comes to foreign policy, although at least not nearly as much a cowboy as Bush 2.0.

Clinton's term in the Senate stretches back to 2001. During her eight-year term in the Senate, she ranked in the upper 15th percentile of Senators in terms of liberal political leanings.

So when, exactly, was Clinton 1.0?

Caineach wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Krensky wrote:

The spectrum looks somewhat like:

Anklebiter --- The Left in the Rest of the World -- Sanders -- Classical (post Souther Shift) Democrats - (Really) Old School Republicans (like TR) - Center - Eisenhower - Modern 'Triangulation' Democrats - H. Clinton - Classical Republicans - Reagan - Nixon --- [Left blank as an Exercise for the Reader] ----- Trump --- The Rest of the GOP Primary Candidates.

Nah. Clinton is far more liberal than you are giving her credit for. rates Clinton as being similarly liberal to Elizabeth Warren, more liberal than Obama, and only slightly more moderate than Sanders. Her Senate record puts her in the upper 15th percentile of most liberal Senators.
Considering that I consider Obama right of center, the fact that this compares her to equivalent of Obama does not really make her left.

She's considered equivalently liberal to Elizabeth Warren. She's considered more liberal than Obama.

Honestly, it's fine if your personal political spectrum is calibrated such that all Democrats appear slightly right-of-center. That isn't unreasonable. What I want to make clear, however, is that calling Clinton more moderate than your average Democrat is simply false. In fact, the opposite is true - she has a record as one of the most liberal Senate Democrats during her time in office. The fact of the matter is that both noteworthy Democrat candidates for President are, by American standards, very liberal.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I understand that sentiment on my more optimistic days, and its good that we're getting into fewer wars these days/ getting into smaller scale wars at least, all democrats seem to be doing is bleeding out on the economy for real people a little slower than the republicans and that needs to end. Hillaries "I told wallstreet to knock it off" isn't going to cut it, especially when democrats are so ridiculously prone to the golden mean fallacy where the dems tell wallstreet to cut it back, wallstreet says, "double down!" and dems compromise to be "Well lets stay the course".

You're getting lost in rhetoric - not a good idea. You should be paying attention to policy and outcomes. The last six years have been a tremendous improvement over the previous eight for progressives, especially relative to what we would have experienced if a Republican had been in office for those past six years.

We need glass steigal back, like, yesterday. We need citizens united ended, we need to end the mitt romney loopholes for raiding pension funds, we need to have an honest talk about the ridiculous jerrymandering going on thats keeping the republicans in charge on a national level and none of that is going to happen if your candidateisn't THAT far away from the republicans. If we need to suffer through a republican presidency until texas goes blue and sanders 2.0 can be elected, so be it.

I am going to beg you: Do not take this standpoint. You might think it's worth it, but it is not. The damage that a single modern Republican President can do, especially over the next eight years, is tremendous and long-lasting - probably to the point of defining much of America's trajectory over the next half century.

Krensky wrote:

The spectrum looks somewhat like:

Anklebiter --- The Left in the Rest of the World -- Sanders -- Classical (post Souther Shift) Democrats - (Really) Old School Republicans (like TR) - Center - Eisenhower - Modern 'Triangulation' Democrats - H. Clinton - Classical Republicans - Reagan - Nixon --- [Left blank as an Exercise for the Reader] ----- Trump --- The Rest of the GOP Primary Candidates.

Nah. Clinton is far more liberal than you are giving her credit for. rates Clinton as being similarly liberal to Elizabeth Warren, more liberal than Obama, and only slightly more moderate than Sanders. Her Senate record puts her in the upper 15th percentile of most liberal Senators.

1 to 50 of 7,118 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email 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.