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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 22,508 posts (23,429 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 22,508 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Coriat wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

10-4 Chris.

Trump tweet doubles down on Russian hacking.

Say what you like about the Watergate breakin, at least Nixon used three Americans. Damn outsourcing!
look where that got him. Caught. That won't happen to donald trump. He'll hire the best.

I'm pretty sure Trump hasn't hired any Russian hackers. The question may be more whether they've hired him.

Of course, if Trump had hired Russian hackers all our problems would soon be over. He'd stiff them on the bill and they'd take care of him.


Yeah. Sorry. I'll let it go. It just struck me like a wave of despair and I had to spit it out.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed a post and the responses to it. We're not OK with hosting comments that endorse hatred, violence, and death upon others in any fashion on paizo.com. It's also really not cool to make blanketed statements about an entire religion in this manner.

Why not, Chris?

The Republican Candidate for President of the United States has made that argument on TV. There's a very real chance it could be US policy this time next year. How can we even pretend it's not acceptable? Will we not be able to talk about actual policy?

That may be the worst thing about Trump. That he's make the unthinkable necessary to consider. That policies Bush wouldn't have considered are now mainstream debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

I like Mike Rowe's take on the 'plagiarism' of speeches.

There are far bigger things to worry about than where the speechwriters cribbed their stuff from.

It's not actually that she plagiarized that I think is important. If her speech had been a copy from some famous, widely admired speaker, I really wouldn't care.

It's the fact that she took a speech from someone the Republican party has spent 8 years demeaning.

Imagine you told me a joke. I told you the joke was stupid and crass. I proceeded to berate you for how bad the joke was in front of other people. Then I turned around and told the joke to someone else. You probably wouldn't care about the last part if I hadn't done the first part.

But it's actually worse than that. If it was a policy speech or a generic paean of praise to someone or something like that, that's one thing.

But this speech: As Scott said in the Cleveland thread: "an entire paragraph talking about hard work and integrity from their opposing team's analogue."
Stealing the part about hard work and integrity. That's good. Even beyond that, the candidate's wife's speech is supposed to be and appeared to be the one about personal experiences, about humanizing the candidate, showing him (or her, as Bill did so well last night) as his family sees him. Stealing for that speech is a special kind of plagiarizing.

Edit: but dammit, I want to stop talking about Trump and Republican convention.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Awesome! The FLOTUS is speaking again?

Oh, you meant Barack Obama. That's cool, too.

or Ivana Trump. I'm just watching the transcript go by and can't tell the difference.

Have you got your gaffe's confused? It was Melania who plagiarized Michelle Obama.

Ivanka Trump's speech just seemed to claim the Donald would enact some of Clinton's policy planks - on childcare and working women specifically.


bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:

But mostly I don't care. Obama & Biden up tonight.

The night's supposed to be about security & foreign policy, IIRC.

Let's see if the Democrats have something more substantive than "murder the terrorist's families."

Substantive is a matter of opinion, but at least that hasn't been the main theme throughout the whole convention.

Of course some will say that just means the Democrats are hiding their intentions while Trump is just telling it like it is. Some will say it more approvingly than others.


But mostly I don't care. Obama & Biden up tonight.

The night's supposed to be about security & foreign policy, IIRC.


Scott Betts wrote:
Quote:
her account is said to have been hacked by Russia!
Trump is saying that. The only real suspicion by security experts is that Russia hacked the DNC.

Don't we also know that the state department itself was hacked a few years back? Probably by Russia.


Neurophage wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

I'm not sure why only anime is being discussed here in reference to martials. Forget anime for a second, if you watch literally any action movie or tv show ever made, you can see why martials are so disappointing in PF.

The biggest reason is those gamers who persist in the absurd double standard that casters can break reality however they want, but martials can't do anything cool cause they're not magic and it's not realitic. This, in a campaign world that features giant flying, fire breathing lizards. Realistic?? F**k that argument. Earthdawn had a great solution to this issue: ALL character classes had magical powers. Some were more martial in application and others resembled spellcasting, but every class could break reality cause they were all magic. No disparity there.

The common argument against that is that people have no real world frame of reference for how dragons work, so it's okay if they do impossible things. But they do have a frame of reference for how swordsmen work, so they need to at least be recognizable to the audience or else the work breaks verisimilitude. That said, I have a lot of problems with that argument for a lot of reasons.

In general, though, my preferred high-magic settings take it as a given that magic suffuses everything and therefor everything (and by extension everyone) is magic. Saying that someone in that kind of setting doesn't use magic is like saying that they don't use air (which is to say that the assertion raises some serious questions about how the person in question even exists). How a person uses magical power is entirely dependent on what they're good at. Some people ritualistically shape it into supernatural phenomena through occult rites and ancient pacts, and some people exercise until they can jump over walls and knock down trees with their fists.

Conceptually, I'm perfectly happy with it either way: anime or other high powered martial stuff where guys with swords can go toe to toe with dragons and perform impossible feats because they're just that skilled or just that badass or worlds where humans are basically realistic and 50' long flying fire breathing reptilian things just eat you for lunch however long you've practiced - SoI&F style.

I'm a little less happy conceptually with PF default where the martial guy can easily survive being chomped on or incinerated by a dragon and can cuisinarte the thing in a dozen seconds, but because of "realism" can't do anything that isn't a matter of basic numbers just getting higher. All that kind of thing is just as much a superpower as flying or throwing lighting around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malik Doom wrote:
Misroi wrote:
On top of this, Trump is either now or shortly will start receiving Top Secret classified information. If this idea does not frighten you, then you need to think harder about the ramifications.
That doesn't scare me nearly as much as Hillary receiving it. She might be dusting off her private server.

Clinton has had full security clearances many times - as a Senator. As Secretary of State. Whatever your opinions on her email server, if there's damage to be done there, it's basically already happened. Obviously, she could spill new secrets, but anything she learns from these briefings isn't likely to be worse than what she's already had the opportunity to leak.

Trump's a complete wild card. He's never been cleared. There's no reason to think he'd pass a top level security clearance check, given his character, his history and his connections.

Luckily we can both take comfort in knowing that the briefings will be pretty general in nature, overviews, not containing operational secrets.


Sundakan wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sundakan wrote:

...And Sauron is a monster. He is not mortal.

Now, monsters already DO have different rules. They can have Templates, for instance. Templates that do, sometimes, have effects like giving them extra actions.

The addition of a "Boss" template might be all that is required in this case. Something like a combo of Mighty and Alacritous.

But if the "Boss" template doesn't require you to be a monster, why can't PCs take it? Isn't that playing by different rules?

No different than Pathfinder already plays by...unless I play in weird games, and the norm is for PCs to be able to add templates onto their characters whenever they please?

Templates are GM tools. They're by their very nature going to "pay by different rules".

The difference is that they don't randomly get more out of the same options a PC does (an NPC Fighter is not automatically better than a PC Fighter), they merely have other abilities on top that may or may not complement it. Like being a vampire.

There's a thin line between NPCs having some options available only to them, and PCs having options taken away from them that they should logically be able to access. Templates are the former, where truncating classes but only for PCs is the latter.

Well, there's a difference between: The high CR baddie must be a vampire or lich or other monster that gets a powerful template and the high CR baddie gets a boss template that gives him a boost just so he's a fair match for the PCs.

I'm not actually sure what the difference is between "Here's a few varieties of template to add to the BBEGs" and "Here's a few extra levels for the BBEGs to take". It may be a line, but it's a very thin one. At least in my mind.

Still, if we're going to GM tools to boost Bosses, I'd agree that levels aren't the way to go. They don't generally scale usefully. It's not usually raw power, but action economy and focus fire that are the key. Since we're having the GM play by different rules, make those rules deal with the actual problem rather than just more PC style power. 5E's Lair monster abilities are an attempt to do that.


Sundakan wrote:

...And Sauron is a monster. He is not mortal.

Now, monsters already DO have different rules. They can have Templates, for instance. Templates that do, sometimes, have effects like giving them extra actions.

The addition of a "Boss" template might be all that is required in this case. Something like a combo of Mighty and Alacritous.

But if the "Boss" template doesn't require you to be a monster, why can't PCs take it? Isn't that playing by different rules?


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I really do want to find out when he thinks America was great. What's he aiming for? In any era I can think of, there are either horrors even the Republicans can't admit to wanting back or building blocks they despise. Often both.

Even nostalgic 50s middle class utopia had Jim Crow for the first and a union backbone for the second.

Don't forget the imminent threat of nuclear war with the USSR, and a 90% top income tax rate!

(I think we need to bring back that tax rate - encouraging the ultra-rich to spend money is a GOOD thing.)

Being the uncharitable person that I am, I think some of Trump's fans want the 50's back - the 1850s.

Yeah, the tax rate would be another thing to ask about.

And I agree about the 1850s. That's got lots of things they can't admit they want. Or even the 1890s.


Pan wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Don't think cable, think old network television, except you have to pay a fee to each channel.
Which is ridiculous because network television is only worth paying for if you subtract advertisements with on demand viewing.

Well sure, now. When you have other choices.

If they'd been able to do that back when network tv was the only option, they certainly would have. And most would have paid it, since that was the only way to get it at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:

Donald Trump literally just told Russia to hack a former Secretary of State in order to obtain what he hopes is classified information, and promised they'd be rewarded for doing so.

That actually just happened.

And yet his numbers won't take a hit. Just goes to show that his supporters don't actually care about little things like the law.

It's not his supporters that matter. It's the persuadable middle.

It also doesn't matter because he doesn't get challenged on it. Not the kind of repetition that actually brings it to people's minds.

His campaign manager has also just said he's not going to release any tax returns. Standard practice for every candidate in decades. Who knows what he's hiding. You've got to assume that whatever it is, it's worse than the optics of not releasing them.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Everyone says that now... but when Trek actually premeires is when the truth be told.

Your choices will be limited to either watching all access or possibly buying the series on Amazon or Itunes, or piracy.

That's the frustrating thing for me. I won't buy it. Hopefully it'll eventually come out in some other format. I refuse to buy into this whole "Must by a complete subscription service from every content provider to get the one exclusive thing each has."

Star Trek won't be it's only exclusive property, it's just the one we all are paying attention to right now. CBS isn't relying on Trekkies alone to support it's service. It is however taking advantage of having a property they want to see.

I see this a bell weather sign of the times. It started with boxes such as AppleTV and Rokku. The Cable hegemony has been showing signs of breakup for some time. HBO, Showtime, and others are now offering services which require nothing more than Internet access to acquire. Home entertainment is going to become more of an al-a carte affair.

But an "a la carte" affair where every service has this one thing you actually want. And then probably a whole bunch of stuff that's shared between them.

I don't want a dozen streaming services competing on exclusive content. I want multiple streaming services offering everything I want competing on service and price.

Don't think cable, think old network television, except you have to pay a fee to each channel.

As I also said above, not supporting binge watching is a complete deal-breaker. Maybe they'll follow the old model and rerun the old episodes in the off-season. Blech.


Rednal wrote:
...If I had to guess, there's no specific time he has in mind. When he says "Make America Great Again", he's saying "It's not what you want it to be anymore, and I'll fix that". Basically, he's letting people fill in the blanks and make assumptions about what he's going to do.

Of course he is. That's why you need to question it. Nail him down on what it means.

It's a great rhetorical trick, but only if he's allowed to get away with it.


ryric wrote:
I fundamentally object to the idea that there be levels designed only for villains. One of the big appeals of the d20 system is that PCs and monsters play by the same rules.

Whether it's explicitly set up that way or not, it often practically works out that way: high level PCs need an higher level enemy to fight. You can work around that by upping the challenge with multiple enemies or monster templates and the like, but it is a basic problem.

I'd rather see it explicit than to pretend they use the same rules, but hack extra things onto the enemies.


bugleyman wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Yeah, I saw that. That's Trump's style. All you small businessmen backing Trump. Remember that's how he treats you. Cuts you off, breaks the deal, doesn't pay and then fights you in court with better lawyers than you can afford until you settle for pennies on the dollar. That's what you're cheering for.
That's how we Make America Great Again...if you think the gilded age and robber barons were great.

I really do want to find out when he thinks America was great. What's he aiming for? In any era I can think of, there are either horrors even the Republicans can't admit to wanting back or building blocks they despise. Often both.

Even nostalgic 50s middle class utopia had Jim Crow for the first and a union backbone for the second.


If they're not going to support binge watching, they're shooting themselves in the foot. That's one of the big ways people consume TV these days.

As soon as that first episode ages out, the motivation for new subscribers drops away with it and just keeps getting worse.


Just a little maybe. More just another little reminder that this isn't unusual. People feeling cheated and hurt that their candidate didn't win. The Bernie Bros this time. The PUMAs in 2008.
The larger point was that, if the process was rigged this time, it was rigged in 2008 as well. And not in Obama's favor. Hillary had the superdelegates then too. They're just not that big a deal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

More breaking news:

The Nigerian Princess' second favorite artists of the year (after Beyonce, natch) turn on their patron:

'USA Freedom Kids' dancing girl trio's manager threatens to sue Trump

Yeah, I saw that. That's Trump's style. All you small businessmen backing Trump. Remember that's how he treats you. Cuts you off, breaks the deal, doesn't pay and then fights you in court with better lawyers than you can afford until you settle for pennies on the dollar. That's what you're cheering for.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Repeats caveat about telephone game. That being said,

Sanders Supporters, Police Protesters Join in Rally Outside DNC

8:20 pm

"An Associated Press photographer witnessed one police officer spraying something at the protesters outside of the AT&T subway station that serves the convention site."

Not to dismiss any claims of police abuse, but god that's a bad article. Nothing actually untrue, but makes it sound like the walked out en masse, rather than most of the Sanders delegates staying inside :
Quote:
Inside the arena, after Hillary Clinton became the first woman to claim the presidential nomination of a major U.S. party, Sanders delegates walked out and held about an hour-long sit-in at a media tent.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Breaking News Flash

Mr. Comrade called. He's stuck in traffic in Connecticut. He got a call from Nancy Donovan who's still in Philadelphia. He reports that she reports that 100ish or so delegates walked out, protesters tried to take the hall, and that both protesters and delegates have been tear gassed by the cops.

If this is not correct, well there's a reason the game is called "telephone."

I haven't seen anything about tear gassing, but it's quite possible.

OTOH, that's 100-150 Sanders delegates out of 1,800. A small handful of deadenders. Meanwhile Sanders calls for Hillary to be nominated by acclamation.

A week ago, Trump's convention chair manipulated the rules to get all the official votes awarded to him - leaving state chairs baffled as the delegate counts they reported didn't match what the chair announced. Today, Sanders achieves the same for Clinton to wild applause.

And it's the Democratic party that's having trouble with unity?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Everyone says that now... but when Trek actually premeires is when the truth be told.

Your choices will be limited to either watching all access or possibly buying the series on Amazon or Itunes, or piracy.

That's the frustrating thing for me. I won't buy it. Hopefully it'll eventually come out in some other format. I refuse to buy into this whole "Must by a complete subscription service from every content provider to get the one exclusive thing each has."


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Really? I got the sense the superdelegates had basically stated their votes ahead of time, and that that was what the media was working with.

Regardless, it's within the DNC's power to adjust the rules on how superdelegates work. I'm hoping they find a way to limit their "endorsements", or otherwise reduce their pre-convention leverage.

To quote a CNN article from when they called the nomination.

Quote:
CNN adds a superdelegate to its overall delegate estimate if any of the following occurs: 1) the superdelegate tells CNN directly whom he or she is supporting (either through our canvassing or our overall reporting); 2) the superdelegate publicly announces his or her support either in a public event, public statement, press release, or in a posting on a verified social media platform; 3) an authorized spokesman for the superdelegate confirms the endorsement to CNN or issues a public statement; 4) the presidential campaign receiving the endorsement makes a public announcement.

If we really limited superdelegates from being counted until the actual vote, we'd have to still be pretending we didn't know who'd won. It's rare in a contested nomination for the winning candidate to get enough pledged delegates to have an outright majority of all delegates. I do not think that would be a good thing. Leaving the nomination up in the air, despite the clear majority of pledged delegates (and votes).

Hillary Clinton hasn't won that absolute majority in pledged delegates. Obama didn't in 2008. Bill Clinton might have in 92, but there were less superdelegates then.
The superdelegates have never gone against the majority of the popular vote. Arguably, their early endorsements might skew the narrative. OTOH, Clinton had the majority of superdelegate endorsements early in 2008 and Obama still won. As it became clear he was winning the primaries, superdelegates switched to him. That was a closer race than this one, by the way.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I honestly don't think the #NeverTrump movement did that much in the shadows. Not because I don't think they would if they could, but because by the time of the convention, they were a crippled minority with almost no influence to achieve their goal. I'm pretty sure what we saw is all they had.

I support superdelegates existing, but I don't think they should be allowed to formally state their planned votes ahead of time. That gives them influence they shouldn't have, since soft delegates are only supposed to go against the voters in a Trump-style emergency (as opposed to, "We don't like this socialist very much"). Letting the media treat them like they've already voted really impacts the narrative when it shouldn't.

We need superdelegates, but I don't like them putting their fingers on the scale before the convention. The convention is the only time of year I want to be hearing from them, generally speaking.

Politicians, and superdelegates are mostly politicians, can endorse as they please. They can also change those endorsements as they please.

I believe the superdelegate counts were based on such endorsements, not on formal announcements of planned votes. I know the final call before the voting in California was based on the media questioning delegates until they had enough, not on any formal announcements.


Scott Betts wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
One wonders what the betting markets' odds were for Trump obtaining the nomination. ;)

I get that you're trying to make a point, here, but I think you're going to have some trouble with it. Primaries are inherently less stable and harder to predict than the general election. Party identity carries a lot of weight, and history and demographics alone can be used to (fairly reliably) predict how most states will vote in a Presidential general election. Primaries, on the other hand, have no party identity demarcations to distinguish candidates from one another - all Democrats run against all Democrats, and all Republicans run against all Republicans. It's therefore very difficult to predict the outcome early on in the primary process, especially when the field is very full and a strong narrative around a candidate hasn't been established. Primaries are also vulnerable to massive support swings, as voters rally behind new narratives, jump on gaffes as campaign-enders, and shift preference en masse as trailing candidates suspend their campaigns. Swings in general election support are much more muted.

As thejeff notes, as the field consolidated, crowd wisdom clearly indicated Trump as the winner very quickly.

Except, from what I can see in the historical market data, there really wasn't much swinginess. I guess it depends on when you mean by "as the field consolidated". On a different site that gives a little more control, Trump was clearly one of the main contenders by December. And clearly the leading contender by January. That's by the earliest actual voting. Only a couple spikes after that - one in February where he and Rubio swapped places and one in April where Cruz almost caught up. Other than that a clear lead all through this year. Even while the pundits were still talking up other candidates.


137ben wrote:

Okay, let's approach it from a different angle:

If it wants to faithfully portray the tone of classical Greek tragedies, it must be even more GrimDark than Dawn of Justice.
The follow-up question is:
Do we want a superhero movie nominally inspired by Greek Mythology to remain true in tone to the source material?
For me, personally, the answer to that question is "no." Sort of. I wouldn't mind Odyssey-levels of anti-heroism, but I'd also be fine with it being even lighter, and I'd prefer if it didn't go full-out Sophocles. At the end of the day, though, I don't really care about how "light" or "dark" it is: just tell a good story with interesting characters and I'll enjoy it. Tell a bland story with flat 1-dimensional characters and I won't.

Do we have any idea who the villain is going to be in this film? Does she have in obvious arch-nemesis in the comics that would be an obvious choice for a villain for this movie? If she is a demi-goddess and daughter of Zeus, the source material would suggest Hera as a natural antagonist. Does she have noteworthy foes in the comics that aren't taken form "real-world" myths?

Ares is her most common Olympian enemy, though she's fought many of them from time to time.

In older versions Hera wasn't her enemy, but then in older versions she wasn't the daughter of Zeus.

The Cheetah is a likely mortal villain. Circe would be another human, but mythological foe. If it's a WWI period piece, they might repurpose one of her WWII villains.


Turin the Mad wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Edit: Also Johnson doesn't have a 15% chance of success. He's polling at 15%. There's a big difference. He's got approximately 0% chance of actually winning. He'd need to be polling at least 30 to have a noticeable chance and then only if he was pulling heavily from both candidates - just a few points of difference in polling make a huge swing in odds of winning. A 55/45 race is nearly a sure thing, not a 55% chance of the leader winning.
Repeating this, because it's an important lesson in election polling and statistics. The proportion of people who support you isn't the same as the chance of you winning the election. At all. Trump and Clinton are polling very close to one another, nationally, but election forecasts and betting markets give Clinton a much better chance of winning than Trump. Johnson is sitting at 0.4% on the betting markets - lower than Sanders. And you can expect that figure to drop as the race progresses.
One wonders what the betting markets' odds were for Trump obtaining the nomination. ;)

Near as I can tell Predictwise had him the likely winner all along. They removed the other candidates from the graphic as they dropped out (and the numbers don't seem to quite match the graph now?) so it's hard to see exactly, but it was basically a sure thing by May and mostly in the 60 & 70% range earlier in the year.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
We don't need to. It was all out in the open in with #NeverTrump. They actually fought to change primary/convention rules to prevent Trump from getting the nomination.

If that was out in the open, there was worse behind the scenes. It's never all out in the open.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The good news is, Trump has yet to deal with a debater who actually knew what they were doing. Hillary is a very skilled debater. But Trump thrives on defying "experts" and "facts", and can make emotional appeals that resonate more with the cynical voters they're trying to reach right now. A conventional debating style might just reinforce her image as the smug, corrupt corporate robot.

Basically Trump Gish Gallops, which while it would get you slaughtered on points in a real formal debate, is really an effective strategy in a public political style debate.

It's really hard to counter someone who just blatantly lies and makes things up.

I'd guess the best strategy is probably to stay cool but get under his skin - get him to over do the lies to the point where they're obvious and to lose his temper. Luckily Trump's thin skinned and I'm sure Hillary is prepping for his style. None of it'll shake his true believers - they'll love seeing screaming at the crooked woman defying him in public, but I'm not sure that'll play so well with moderates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM_Beernorg wrote:

Bathroom bills...evidence that a number of our political leaders are both insane, and about 150 years behind the times.

Earth is being capitalism'd to death for resources and suffering for our massive over consumption, law enforcement has been exposed as less than lawful (not new really, not at all), I could go on. But what do some of our law makers focus on, preventing folk from using the bathroom of their choice, all because of their outmoded and dated ways of thinking, and a massive disconnect from the people they are supposed to represent.

So, cynical, probably, but unfounded, I think not.

And this is your argument for why you can't support Democrats? Cause I'm missing something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

You aren't exactly wrong, either. And when I say "Sanders didn't have a fair fight", I'm not even necessarily saying anyone deliberately cheated him. Maybe what happened in Arizona rally was just a huge screwup. They're still looking into it. Maybe the so-called money laundering was just really poor management. And I personally believe the media was probably just working off confirmation bias rather than a real conspiracy to push Sanders out.

But those who feel the need to push the "Sanders lost fair and square" argument are in the exact same place as those who push "Sanders was cheated" argument: Wasting time on the wrong issue. Both of our sides are just trying to make ourselves feel better about the primary—Hillary supporters want to believe that their victory was legitimate and Sanders really was just a vocal minority, Sanders supporters want to believe that Sanders could win in an even rumble. It's all just therapy at this point.

Whether or not the primary was fair or balanced or honest is wholly irrelevant and a waste of time. Hillary won. It's time to make sure she wins again, because the alternative is the product of someone saying, "What would happen if Chester Cheetah had a humansona?"

Precisely. Sanders has moved on. We don't need to refight the primary for him.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Look, whatever, I voted for Nader in 2000 and--OW! Stop throwing things, it's not like I did it in Florida!
Nader only got less than 98K votes in Florida in the 2000 election. Nader didn't cost Gore the election in Florida; the millions of Florida voters who preferred Gore but didn't get off their collective asses to vote is why Bush won.

And stupid people who didn't know how to follow a line to a hole punch.

I voted for Gore in 2000. It was my first Presidential election I could vote in.

I also lived in Florida in Palm Beach County at the time...and the ballot was NOT that difficult to understand. You'd have to be suffering from severe cognitive deficiency to not be able to follow a simple line to a dot. So dumb that your vote shouldn't count.

I didn't vote for Bush, but frankly, if people who couldn't read that thing were the reason he won, I don't care.

I care. Because of the consequences. These aren't neat little games where sportsmanship and character are all that really matters. People live or die because of the outcome.

Crafting a ballot that subtly guides even a small percentage of voters to your candidate matters.
Not as much in Florida that year as more egregious things like purging the voter rolls based on rough name matches. An awful lot of (mostly poor, mostly black) people showed up knowing they were registered and were turned away. Purged because their name was close to some felon's.
Or, my personal favorite, the Jews for Buchanon.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
The primary was never a fair fight. We can realize that fairly obvious fact and also recognize that it's over and we need to move on. Just like I can vote for Clinton this November while personally feeling that she will take the Democratic party in the wrong direction.

Politics is never a fair fight. There's way too much at stake.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Franken seemed a bit flat, and the repartee with Silverman seemed overly-rehearsed, but they accomplished their goal. I enjoyed Silverman's passionate pro-Sanders stumping and her bringing it around to full support for Clinton. I loved her adlib, "Can I just say: To the 'Bernie or Bust' people, you're being ridiculous."

The Sanders folk got full helpings of this kind of patronisation from the DNC and others throughout the entire primary process. Whoever thought that this would be better received because Silverman had been an outspoken Bernie supporter, needs to go soak their head in a bucket until the rest of their dumb ideas wash away. The last thing that the Sanders crowd needed was yet another voice of dismissal.

So I'd say to Silverman right back. "You should know why they're here. And even if the game was rigged from the start, they were far from ridiculous in what they were fighting for."

Her improv wasn't needed, wasn't wanted, and it surely was not funny.

The Tea-Partiers didn't take over the Republican party in a single push or single decisive battle. They had a strategy, concrete goals, and (more or less) intra-unity; they made incremental progress over several years to get to where they are today.

It's unrealistic for Sanders supporters to expect to take over the Democratic party in a single primary season. They got to see major components of the DNC platform that achieve many of their goals. They've made major incremental progress in an incredibly short amount of time. This is good, very good. But it's tactically stupid to piss and moan that they didn't achieve everything the wanted, no matter how unfeasible or unrealistic, and to burn bridges they'll need down the road. The primary is over, and Sanders lost, without any voter manipulation or fraud. The Sanders supporters can either build on their Very Good first steps of incremental successes, big and small... or they can entrench themselves waiting for...

Exactly. The Tea Party also didn't start by winning a presidential race (or even a Presidential primary.)

You want to shift the party left? Most of the states have yet to hold primaries for Congress and state positions. Go compete in those. Win those. Win some of the down ticket races. Make the lower level politicians fear a primary from the left.
That's what the Tea Party did. It's backfired in part because they're too extreme, but it's worked quite well in taking over the GOP.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Franken seemed a bit flat, and the repartee with Silverman seemed overly-rehearsed, but they accomplished their goal. I enjoyed Silverman's passionate pro-Sanders stumping and her bringing it around to full support for Clinton. I loved her adlib, "Can I just say: To the 'Bernie or Bust' people, you're being ridiculous."

The Sanders folk got full helpings of this kind of patronisation from the DNC and others throughout the entire primary process. Whoever thought that this would be better received because Silverman had been an outspoken Bernie supporter, needs to go soak their head in a bucket until the rest of their dumb ideas wash away. The last thing that the Sanders crowd needed was yet another voice of dismissal.

So I'd say to Silverman right back. "You should know why they're here. And even if the game was rigged from the start, they were far from ridiculous in what they were fighting for."

Her improv wasn't needed, wasn't wanted, and it surely was not funny.

They were far from ridiculous in what they and Sanders were fighting for. But in continuing the fight by attacking Sanders at the convention, sure.

And that only really applies if you concede the game was rigged from the start.

It's not the "Sanders folk" the patronisation is aimed at. It's the tiny minority of dead enders. Which is looking like somewhere around 10% of Sanders supporters at this point. Probably still dropping.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Ronnie wouldn't recognize this Republican Party - the nominee admires someone who claims the breakup of the USSR is the greatest disaster of the 20th century, owes a large part of his fortune to the same guy (and his lackeys), and might even be getting help from them. The rest of the party is passing bathroom bills, voter ID laws, and other nonsense that can best be summed up as 'solutions in search of problems', or as I like to call them, 'exactly the big government Reagan warned about'.

Well, Reagan, like all the GOP since, wasn't nearly as anti big government as he claimed. Only some types of big government.

He really started the link to the religious right that brought anti-abortion and other "values" issues to the GOP. That's led us straight to the bathroom bills of today.

There's also always the trouble distinguishing between Reagan's actual policies and opinions and the canonized perfect Republican the party worships today.


Hitdice wrote:

Rogue stuff:
Not just of too many characters, but of trying to use a character without the actual backstory that developed the character. You couldn't use Claremont's Rogue without Mystique's adopting her into the Brotherhood and draining Carol. And you couldn't really justify that without having Carol as an established character. Much of that initial characterization and conflict bringing Rogue onto the team worked because the X-Men had ties to Carol - developed while she recovered from Rogue's attack.

When it works, it's one of the great joys of a serialized story. You can develop depth in ways you can't in any shorter form. Certainly not in a single movie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:


  • ...followed by Bernie Sanders' decisive right cross. At the beginning, I was a bit paranoid where he was going with it, but he unequivocally and persuasively built a winning case for Clinton. Just as importantly, he built a convincing case about the need for continuing action and further reforms. By now, any f!cks I had left for the still booing Bernie-or-Busters were long gone, and the earth was thoroughly salted.
  • I liked that he built that winning case on his issues.


    Hitdice wrote:
    ** spoiler omitted **

    Rogue stuff:
    Rogue was actually pretty young and inexperienced when she joined. Not quite Kitty Pryde level, but still naive. Just covering it all with ex-supervillian bravado. In that continuity, it would work better having that kind of relationship with Mystique, but with all the twisted nastiness that using it to manipulate her into being a villain would entail.

    If you're going to do Rogue without having her start as a villain and particularly without having mindf+#*ed Carol, she could quite easily wind up in that kind of role with Wolverine.


    Jiggy wrote:
    thejeff wrote:
    HeHateMe wrote:
    Big Avatar the Last Airbender fan here, and I know the creators are American, but wasn't the animation done by a Korean studio? Still not anime obviously, but I didn't think it was an entirely American show.
    That's already been dismissed as "why the animation looks like it was drawn in an Asian style", but having no influence on people thinking it was like anime.
    What was actually said on the topic wrote:
    ...that has no influence on the content...
    I'm going to move forward with the assumption that the discrepancy here is an honest mistake of some kind, rather than the deliberate misrepresentation that it very much looks like. With that in mind, I would recommend urgency in identifying and dealing with whatever might be blocking you from noticing when someone else's opinion/statement is different from what you assumed it was going to be, lest folks start assuming malice/dishonesty rather than innocent error.

    As I said earlier, I and apparently some others, seem to have a good deal of trouble figuring out what you mean in this conversation.

    It's possible the fault is entirely ours.

    You did in fact say it has no influence on the content, but the entire discussion started with someone dismissing Avatar on the grounds they thought it was anime. Perhaps that bit of the discussion was completely unrelated?


    So, since this thread is supposedly about the convention, not about Trump or refighting primary wars, did anyone actually watch any of it last night?

    Highlights?
    Good speeches?
    Major gaffes?
    Anything?

    Contrast with the RNC? The tone was definitely hugely different. Even the parts aimed at Trump were a far cry from "Lock her up!"


    Sundakan wrote:

    I wouldn't mind him being an arrogant little prick at all (being raised by the League and essentially as a prince makes that a very logical characterization).

    It's the Mary Sue part that annoyed me. What makes arrogant characters fun to watch is basically for when they get knocked down a peg...but he never is. Even when he gets whupped by Nightwing, he gave a fair enough accounting of himself that rather than catharsis you feel like screaming "B@!@&$*~!".

    They took a different tack with Damian, at least before he died. Rather than setting you up to enjoy to arrogant 10(?) year old getting whupped, the good parts were the cracks in his armor. The bits where you could see the arrogance was largely a mask and you could see the little kid inside, desperate for his father's love.

    And Bruce nearly incapable of showing it.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Scott Betts wrote:
    GM_Beernorg wrote:

    Giant douche or turd sandwich, you gotta pick one Stan!

    I used to find this funny, now, I find it terrifying.

    Watch the speeches from the RNC, then watch the speeches from the DNC. And come back here and tell me you don't see a meaningful difference between the two parties and the two candidates. You're buying into a cynical, fashionable view that the two are interchangeable that has zero basis in reality. It's reductionist, and harmful to discourse and democracy.

    Yeah, the contrast is as extreme as I've ever seen it. Sure you can say it's all just talk, but the difference between the hate and fear the Republicans are trying to drum up and the emphasis the Democrats bring is just worlds apart.


    MMCJawa wrote:
    Somehow I think if Trump actually tried to launch a nuke, the Military would probably refuse his order. It's not like they are a mindless robot army or anything.

    If he just randomly ordered a launch because of an insult or something, they'd likely refuse.

    If his blustering recklessness got us into a tense confrontation and he did so in a moment of crisis ...

    And given that he's already talked about not defending NATO members in some cases, that's kind of an open invitation to at least test the waters.


    bugleyman wrote:

    The amount of attention we pay to polls given the fact that the president isn't elected by popular vote is kinda weird.

    Just ask Al...

    Well, the national polls aren't that useful, though large differences are suggestive at the very least. If someone's actually up by 5% or so, that's going to translate to an electoral college victory, unless the demographics are really, really skewed.

    State polling, especially swing state polling shows a lot.


    Orville Redenbacher wrote:
    Can we get a sarcasm check in here???

    Sorry. My meter exploded a few days back.


    Randarak wrote:
    Hama wrote:
    In the comics.
    Does that make it less valid?

    Given everything else that's changing, not something they have to stick to.

    Marvel name's gotta come from somewhere, since it's not a homage to the great hero, the Kree Captain Mar-vell - unless they're doing a lot more backstory than I expect.

    1 to 50 of 22,508 << 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.