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. 22,520 posts (23,441 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 22,520 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Scott Betts wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

There's really not that much infighting. The vocal minority of Bernie supporters still causing real trouble are a tiny fraction of actual Bernie supporters. They're mainly the ones who were just in it because they hated Clinton and didn't really care about the movement. The rest of us know it's time to move on.

Barack Obama's speech was lovely. The man speaks very much good! And while I don't agree with all of their policies, the palpable love between President Obama and Vice President Biden is just flipping beautiful. I'm going to miss that bond. I'm going to miss a lot of things from this POTUS.

Obama is going to be around for a long while, yet. I expect some of his most important, meaningful work will be done after he leaves office. The guy is going to have a hell of a legacy.

I've noticed that Democratic Presidents tend to do more after their terms.

Carter's work is obvious. Clinton's somewhat more controversial.
Still compare to Reagan (who was admittedly old and probably ill) or either Bush.


Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Jeff,

The spinning for you is the only thing too anime?

That was very tongue in cheek. :)

But the spinning transformation, if it wasn't specifically from the old show, would definitely be called out as a copy of various magical girl transformation anime scenes.

When it's probably the other way around if anything.

I dunno. Sentai transformation sequences may be older than the old wonder woman show.

Yeah, might be. Though I really doubt the WW creators were aware of it.

Somehow I was thinking the show was earlier - more of a peer of the old Batman show rather than late 70s.


Bluddwolf wrote:
Again, not familiar with everything the guy has written or did. The game is either a good system or it's not. If I started being so selective in my entertainment and the full access to the background of every single person associated with that product, I'd probably not be able to read, watch or play anything.

You don't have to have "full access to the background of every single person associated with that product", this is pretty much a one man show and he's pretty blatant about it.

He's a convicted murderer and arsonist.

If you don't care, that's fine. Your business. Hiding behind "I'd have to check everything anyone involved with every product has ever said or done" is b&@$!$%+. Or comparing Vikernes with far milder people "expressing pride in whiteness", for example. If you don't care, just own it. Don't try to defend him.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Bernie might not be as socialist as some, but he's better than other at moving the party back to the left.

Republicans had a mixed bag about where they stand on being progressive.

Progressive: Slavery is bad.

Conservative: Gay sex is bad.

Progressive: We need to wean ourselves off foreign oil interests.

Conservative: Let's drill the hell out of everything!

Democrats aren't much better.

But we'll see how it goes in another 20-30 years.

If the comet doesn't hit us first that is.

Well, back when the Republicans were distinct in thinking slavery was bad, everyone thought Gay Sex was bad. Before that changed Democrats were pro-Civil Rights and Republicans pro-segregation.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Jeff,

The spinning for you is the only thing too anime?

That was very tongue in cheek. :)

But the spinning transformation, if it wasn't specifically from the old show, would definitely be called out as a copy of various magical girl transformation anime scenes.

When it's probably the other way around if anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
As much as some tend to dismiss everything as purely partisan...

Just proves Obama and Clinton are really Republicans.

</snark> Because the tag is probably needed.

Not only is the tag not needed, it's wrong.

Bill Clinton shifted the Democratic party far to the right in the 1990s, and Obama hasn't done much to change that. However, during that same time, the Republicans have been galloping so far to the right that they're almost unrecognizable even compared to the Reagan-era Republicans (who themselves were considered right-wing nutcases compared to, say, Nixon/Ford).

So while the situation used to look like this:

---------D----------------------R--------------

It now looks like this:

---------------------------------D----------------------------------------- ----------------R-

Of course, the American left wing has never actually looked leftist by world standards. Even in the 1930s, Roosevelt was a centrist. Most Americans would not know a socialist if they saw one on TV, as proven by the fact that they consider Bernie Sanders to be one.

Did I say Democrats were socialists? Or even Leftists?

And of course saying that today's Democrats are like Republicans of 30 years ago doesn't say Democrats are Republicans because today's Republicans aren't like that.

Also worth pointing out that your description only applies to some issues. On others, even today's Republicans are "left" of old school Democrats.


bugleyman wrote:
As much as some tend to dismiss everything as purely partisan...

Just proves Obama and Clinton are really Republicans.

</snark> Because the tag is probably needed.


Dragon78 wrote:
The preview showed her being called Diana Prince and talking with a British accent instead of her normal one. So it sounds like she might get her secret identity. But the real question is will she have her transformation from the original show;)

Too anime.


Krensky wrote:

What sort of morning did the executives involved have?

How much politics are going on in the board room? Remember that Ghostbusters was greenlit by the last management team so there's a fair chance the current team will chuck it under the bus as part of proving that the last people were idiots I'd it's not an unquestionable smash hit.

There's that too.

Is one of the executives a Ghostbusters fan? A fan of one of the actresses?

All sorts of less rational thinking can affect marginal cases.

Still, money made through merchandising looks just as good on the balance sheet as money made from ticket sales.


RainyDayNinja wrote:
Werthead wrote:
The film has now taken $130 million and should reach its production budget in the next few days. Then it has to claw back the marketing budget, which Sony has not disclosed. As was said earlier, this will be around 2x the production budget. 3x is only necessary if the film was marketed all around the world on a massive scale, which GHOSTBUSTERS very definitely was not.

OK, so it doesn't look like it's on track to earn back the marketing budget on its own, but it seems they're making a killing on merchandising.

If the film is successful purely on the strength of merchandising, does that merit a sequel?

Will the sequel sell more stuff?

Do they think it will make a profit overall?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

There are ways to make things scale slightly better, but the whole premise of DnD and derivatives makes it hard to scale well.

In DnD and PF you start fighting goblins and struggling to beat orcs, snd end defeating great wyrms and demon princes who can literally make meteors fall and miracles happen. There's little room there for balance. If a character can hit a great wyrms, he can't miss a goblin, unless the math is so flat that goblins can hit dragons too. Which has it's own set of problems

True, but not really a problem. You just don't go back to fighting goblins by the time you're fighting great wyrms.

In the early days you have trouble hitting goblins. Later on, you have trouble hitting great wyrms. (Iterative attacks change this a bit: You may nearly always hit your first attack and nearly always miss your last, but the roll matters in between.)

Clearer with saves: When whole party has to make saves against something, at low levels those where that's a good save and a useful stat might be +5 or 6 over those where it's a bad save and a dump stat. At high levels: you can easily have a difference of 15.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Absolutely. I do think there is a limit, however - the d20 system begins to go a little wonky at very high levels, no matter what you do. It's because of the nature of having a d20 that you roll. At some point, dice cease to matter (outside of the ~5% chance of auto-pass/fail on attacks and saves), and numbers become all-powerful forces of determination.

I don't think it actually is because of using a d20. More because of the way the d20 system chooses to scale abilities - some getting better every level, others half that, leading to greater and greater differences, exacerbated by the ability to stack modifiers to focus even more.

That's what starts to make the rolls meaningless. You could make a system using a d20 where your good saves were a fixed amount better than your bad ones, for example. That would scale better.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


3 people 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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

1 to 50 of 22,520 << 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.