Sheriff Belor Hemolock

Scott Betts's page

Goblin Squad Member. 7,310 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 1,011 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The internet is apparently super thirsty for that Goblin companion. It would be phenomenal to see this thing hit $900k.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MendedWall12 wrote:
Stratagemini wrote:

There won't be level scaling. you can run into enemies in an area you're not prepared for, run away, level up and come back and crush them.

Also they're trying to implement wielding 1 handed weapons in 2 hands.

Wow! That is awesome. Where was that announcement made? At my own tabletop games this is something I've always struggled with. I want to create a world where level one characters can run into a CR 20 dragon, or a CR 10 NPC wizard, and know that they should either kowtow or skedaddle. A "realistic" Golarion would absolutely be like that. Yet, even as I do that, I'm always very careful about dropping overt and obvious hints about the fact that the monster or person the PCs are interacting with is well beyond their "power level" to contend with. In which case the "realism" of that non-scaling world seems to disappear. I'll be very interested to see how the game designers handle that dynamic.

Logic for this is built into the Kingmaker adventure path - the exploration of the River Kingdoms happens in phases, so the party is generally poking around an area that is roughly within their level range. So if the party sticks to their current charter, it's possible they'll encounter enemies that pose a serious threat, but they shouldn't stumble across enemies who are wildly overpowered compared to the party. One of the big questions, then, in the Kingmaker game is going to be whether the wilderness "unlocks" in phases (as the party's charter expands), or if the entirety of the game's map is available to explore from the start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would be a really, really terrible idea as a stretch goal. The amount of money they ask for as a stretch goal threshold would be nowhere near the amount required to implement multiplayer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artem Lebeda wrote:

According to Kicktraq, PF:KM is on course to make over $2 million.

http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/owlcatgames/pathfinder-kingmaker/

Kicktraq's trends/projections are almost always far, far too optimistic this early in the cycle. If you compare the progress seen in Kingmaker's funding to date with the patterns seen in other similar projects like Project Eternity (Pillars of Eternity) or Wasteland 2, you'll note that these games can expect to close out with a funding total roughly equal to double what they have earned at the 20% mark (which is about where Kingmaker is today). It's reasonable to expect somewhere between $600,000 and $1 million as a final total for Kingmaker. It would be pretty weird if Kingmaker raised $2 million.

EDIT: Note, also, that both of the games I referenced hit their funding goals within two days. They mitigated some of the mid-cycle "slump" by revealing stretch goals that generated buzz, encouraged backers to up their pledge amounts, and kept traffic flowing to the campaign site. Kingmaker hasn't yet hit its funding goal. While I'm sure they have stretch goals lined up, the next week or so is going to be pretty rough as they inch towards $500,000 if they don't have some meaningful reveals to drop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
I got to play the demo,

Were you able to rotate the camera/view?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artem Lebeda wrote:
Doesn't isometric mean that the world is presented at an angle?

The term "isometric" is a lot more specific than that. It refers to a type of projection - a way to take a three-dimensional reality and display it in two dimensions (a common example of a projection is any flat map of the earth). Isometric projection is a particularly useful sort of projection for a whole host of reasons, and a very close approximation of isometric projection is used in a lot of video games (particularly older games, but even some newer ones like Pillars of Eternity).

Those old Ravenloft maps you're thinking of are isometric. The demo footage of Kingmaker posted earlier, though, is very much not - it appears to be rendered as a three-dimensional environment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Thanks Nullpunkt.

And "isometric" is what Planescape et al used? Where you can't spin your view 360 ° around your character, and you are always stuck looking at the game from one angle?

"Isometric" by itself doesn't mandate a single fixed point of view; it describes a (particularly useful) type of visual projection. You could have an isometric projection that allows you to switch between four different viewing directions, for example.

In practice, though, one of the advantages to using an isometric projection is that you can get away with only using a single viewing angle, which means you don't have to produce or render much of the environment in 3D. I expect that the new Kingmaker game will follow this particular tradition.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Keydan wrote:
But we don't have a cover. We have a few concept and promotion arts for a game, which is early in development. If this isn't jumping to conclusions - I don't know what is.

There is a decision-making process that goes into deciding what art to develop, and what art to show the public. If diversity wasn't a significant consideration during that decision-making process, it doesn't bode well for diversity being a significant consideration during other decision-making processes.

Regardless, by voicing these concerns early on (ish) in the development process, there's a chance that the developers will be able to incorporate that sort of community feedback into their final product.

Quote:
Also I am not a big supporter of token diversity. At least for me - it spoils immersion.

I think your immersion can probably suffer just a tiny bit for the sake of making the game more inclusive and welcoming, don't you? Let's just all acknowledge that your personal sense of immersion will recover from the ordeal of seeing another dark-skinned person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
If the bad things republicans say were so easily dismissed, why would someone who leans more to Trump be so easily dismissed on this very topic as merely a bigot and/or racist?

Because when an arguably racist guy who is ostensibly on your team looks at the stuff you're doing and says, "Damn, that's really racist - even I can't get behind that!" it tends to turn heads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NenkotaMoon wrote:
I keep being asked to put my thoughts in here, but why. I'm told several things I like paint me as a bigot here, as well, from my understanding a racist.

Like what? What things that you support do you believe paint you as a bigot or a racist?

And really, we're not demanding that you share with us. We're asking you to please either participate meaningfully in the discussion, or go do something else. Because so far you haven't really done anything but insult people and complain about the thread - basically the definition of threadcrapping. We'd be happy to talk about the election with you, but if that's not what you're here for then this isn't the thread for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:
I would not be surprised if a comparable list of Clinton dishonesty would be dismissed as being unfounded (or worse, conspiracy theories), or coming from an unreliable source.

There is no comparable list of Clinton dishonesty, because Clinton doesn't go on the campaign trail, make two stops, and lie to the American people 18 times in the process.

No one is suggesting that Clinton is perfectly honest. She is roughly as honest as your average politician, perhaps slightly more honest if her Politifact record is any indication.

But Trump is something special. He is remarkably dishonest. Like, no-one-even-comes-close dishonest.

Quote:
Yet a lot of people do not seem to trust Hillary Clinton all that much. Now why is that a thing? I know you like being confrontational Scott, but that does not make you "win" a debate.

I've never said or believed that it does. So why the random attack on my character?

Quote:
Yet earlier some people established that accusations, especially if there are numerous examples on display, mean that the people making them might be on to something.

I'm going to ask you to be a bit more intellectually honest yourself, and not twist my words to support your narrative. I did not suggest that it's possible to reliably judge the accuracy of any and all accusations based on the number of people who believe those accusations.

I'll repeat: what you just claimed I established was something that I did not establish, and do not believe to be true.

I established that accusations of racism can be reliably predicted (not with perfect accuracy, but with a high degree of accuracy) to be true if those accusations come from diverse, independent groups of people, repeatedly, over an extended period of time. I'm not arguing anything beyond that. I made that claim so that it could not only be shown that Trump himself is racist (that much is obvious, because we have his record to look at) but also that supporters of his who suggest that the terms "racist" or "bigot" are being used unfairly - in my experience, they object to those terms because they frequently find themselves labeled with those terms. This isn't a heuristic that I'm suggesting we use in place of actual evidence of racism (or the absence thereof). I'm suggesting that it's reasonable to use it when we aren't familiar with the individual's behavior ourselves, but are familiar with others' reactions to their behavior.

I'm curious what your thesis is, though, Icyshadow. Are you trying to argue that both sides are equally intellectually dishonest? If so, what credible evidence do you have of that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I also think that one thing Brexit should have taught us is that in the broader political conversation, calling people racists doesn't always work—even when it's true. So I'm not confident this conversation is going to bear any but the lowest-hanging fruits.

On the contrary, calling out racism (and other ugly behavior) is one of the most effective ways to work for social change. Questions of social justice go through a process - you raise awareness when awareness is low, you debate in the public eye when awareness is high but acceptance is low, and you shame holdouts when awareness is high and acceptance is high.

Calling people racists isn't a good way to get those people to like you. But being one voice out of many calling someone a racist is a great way to teach a person whose mind will never change to at least keep their ideology to themselves, which curbs its spread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
It also doesn't make much sense to worry so much about watchlist suspects being able to legally purchase firearms (which by the way applies to <%5 of the people on the list, since only those %5 are US citizens) when we haven't had any major incidents of people buying firearms while on the list and then going on shooting sprees.

The Orlando nightclub shooter would have been prevented from obtaining firearms if the Democratic Party's plan for preventing sales to those who have been investigated by the FBI had been in effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
A direct quote from the link: "In recent years, the gun lobby has promoted a state legislative agenda that would ultimately allow anyone to carry a gun anywhere." Which part of that is not a removal of all restrictions. "Anyone" and "anywhere" are universal terms, meaning without restriction.

Except that the rest of us can read that troublesome page title "Guns in Public Places" - you know, the one that appears immediately and directly above that quote you cited? Context is a pain, I know.

Quote:
It's not an argument over terminology, you're simply using completely irrelevant words. Debating whether a stool is a chair would be an argument over terminology. What you're doing is more akin to calling a stool a swimming pool. Also, what constitution are you reading? Is it the same one as SCOTUS? If so, I have some bad news for you.

So literally the majority of the country has no problem understanding these "completely irrelevant words", but they're the ones who are wrong? I'm not sure you quite get how language works.

Quote:
So you're just going to ignore the peer-reviewed journal I used to back up my point? Pot, meet kettle.

Speaking as someone with a four year degree from one of the top 5 criminology programs in the country, I can assure you that the question of the impact of legal carry on college campuses (and other protected spaces) is absolutely not a settled one, and it is intellectually dishonest of you (or willfully ignorant) to carry on as though it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
For lack of a better term, it's pretty much a "no go" for me, for a few reasons. For one, I'm vehemently against the idea of the government at any level being able to take away constitutionally protected rights without the scrutinized person being able to defend themselves in a court of law. I would say the same thing if it was suggested that "suspected terrorists" shouldn't be able to speak publicly. Not only is this an issue of defending currently protected rights, but also one of not opening the floodgates to thought police (it's not a big leap to go from arbitrarily suspending one right to another). I don't say that from under a tin-foil hat thinking that big brother is out to get me, but rather from an observation of similar progressions in other western countries.

And, of course, for those following along, quite a few western countries rank higher on various indices of democratic freedoms than the United States does. Many of these have extremely restrictive gun control laws. The theory that restricting gun rights leads to tyranny is one that is utterly unsupported in modern democratic, western nations.


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

Fallacy. Fallacy fallacy fallacy phallacy fallacy. Fallacist's fallacy...

You ever hear a perfectly cromulent word so frequently that it now sounds weird, like you're now not quite sure it's real?

This is a documented phenomenon known as semantic satiation. Learn things every day!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Also, 'bigoted' no longer has meaning. When it's used against 'anyone one side doesn't like', that tends to happen. Decades of prominence in the public eye, nary a peep. Runs against Democrats, immediately branded 'bigot', 'homophobe', 'racist', 'dark', etc, etc, the whole deplorable pile.

I have literally NEVER met anyone angry at the term "bigoted" who didn't deserve the label. In order to be that upset with a word, they have to have been hit with it repeatedly and by a range of people. And anyone who is being called a bigot repeatedly and by a range of people is almost certainly an actual bigot.

If you don't like being called a bigot, try not being a bigot.

WHOA...let's stop...right there.

When we start calling people names like that, it's starting to get REALLY nasty.

Mean and nasty. Maybe it's time we all took a step back and said...whoa...let's not toss that term at ANYONE here or imply that we are nasty enough to use that term towards anyone else right now...at least in the way we've been discussing politics.

A quick google search (typed the term into google) had it's terminology right at the top of the page for that to define it as

{a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.}

Think about that...and perhaps we can all think how that may apply to all of us, and perhaps none of us.

No. And I reject your philosophy. The bigotry I oppose has a narrower definition, and I'm quite sure you know what it is - it encompasses racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other similar ugly prejudices. When someone is called a "bigot" in modern parlance, they mean that the person in question exhibits a collection of those prejudices.

Bigotry is a topic in this election, unfortunately. And at least one user here is trying to push the notion that it is a label that is being used unfairly. That notion is tripe, and it's typically peddled by people who don't like the label because others frequently apply it to them.

Bigotry is a topic in this election, because one of the two candidates for President is a tremendous bigot, and tailors his message to appeal to other like-minded bigots. Anyone trying to tell you otherwise is a liar at best, and is almost certainly a party to that bigotry.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
Also, 'bigoted' no longer has meaning. When it's used against 'anyone one side doesn't like', that tends to happen. Decades of prominence in the public eye, nary a peep. Runs against Democrats, immediately branded 'bigot', 'homophobe', 'racist', 'dark', etc, etc, the whole deplorable pile.

I have literally NEVER met anyone angry at the term "bigoted" who didn't deserve the label. In order to be that upset with a word, they have to have been hit with it repeatedly and by a range of people. And anyone who is being called a bigot repeatedly and by a range of people is almost certainly an actual bigot.

If you don't like being called a bigot, try not being a bigot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
OK, so when you define "Basic Facts", it is "Whatever Poltifact tells you it is at the time?"

Nah. Politifact is just a great example.

Quote:
Oh man, that's rich. It's good to know that you have a single website from which you derive your objective truth.

I have literally hundreds. Politifact is simply the most insurmountable for your argument.

Quote:
Good job. Politifact says she has more 'true' claims. What does that tell us? Does that tell us she is not corrupt, didn't do pay-for-play, didn't delete specific data, didn't lie about being under sniper fire, didn't use the Clinton Foundation as a way to manipulate bribes, etc, etc?

Actually, it literally refutes a number of those claims. So, yes, in some cases.

Quote:
No, it just tells you that a certain website says more of her claims were 'true'.

I mean, or you could actually read the articles.

Quote:
I don't need to make claims about Politifact's "bias". I could, but that's low-hanging fruit. I much prefer for you to logically look at your claim and realize how silly it is.

Serious question - do you honestly believe you're coming across as having the stronger position? Not to me, I mean. To the rest of the people reading your posts. Do you believe that each time you post, you are improving your position in the estimation of those listening?

Quote:
Yes, I hate the Democrat party. It is the absolutely most corrupt organization in the USA today.

I doubt even you believe that.

Quote:
No, I'm not an Conservative. Yes, it's insulting for you to call me one. No, I don't care, because you are simply misinformed.

Yes, you're insulted, but no, you don't care? Which is it? You can either be insulted, or you can not care. You can't choose both.

Regardless, I love when right-wingers try to pretend they aren't right-wingers by disagreeing with the Republican Party in a couple of areas. No one believes that. It's just a different shade of "I'm not racist! I have black friends!"

Quote:
Yes, you're a fool for doing so, because in your worldview there is the binary of "Us good" VS "Them bad" with no in-between, so you can't even comprehend that there's anything else on the spectrum.

Not in "my worldview." Just in this election. You have two choices.

Quote:
Thank you for proving it is, in fact, your strategy. I appreciate it when you are so obvious. This is why you are not Inner Party, you're incapable of higher-level deception. You're too honest to be evil. There's hope.

You're jumping at shadows. You're fighting a war with your own imagination, and you're losing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
In terms of how they handle the ultra wealthy, they are the same.

No.

Quote:
For the quality of their results in foreign interventions, they are the same.

No.

Quote:
Assessing the utility of their programs to spend taxpayer dollars, they are the same.

No.

Quote:
How well they want other perspectives to be in the debate, they are the same.

One of them literally has a democratic socialist (and their sole significant primary competitor) campaigning on their behalf this next week. The other just wishes his primary opponents would shut up about how much of a hack he is.

Quote:
Etc., the are the same.

Low effort.

Quote:
I'm voting for Bernie. He is by far the best candidate who actually ran for president. I don't care that he officially endorses another at this point. Actually I do care and it makes me sad that the "protest candidate" rolled over and became part of the problem. Still, maybe this time next year he will wake up and get back to work.

Or he's just more interested in accomplishing something meaningful than in pointless protests. Your candidate of choice has an ounce of practicality in him. You don't. He's a smart guy. Ever think, "Gee, maybe he has a reason for all of this?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arturius Fischer wrote:
No, no, please go on about which side is ignoring more 'basic facts', this is delicious.

Okay!

Here's Hillary Clinton's Politifact scorecard.

Here's Donald Trump's.

I encourage you to blame the absolutely insane disparity in those two charts on Politifact's "bias." Bonus points if you mention that they're run by the Tampa Bay Times, a newspaper whose editorial board has endorsed Clinton! That will make your position look super strong.

You hate the Democratic Party with a burning passion. Fine, we get that. It really is not a great time to be a conservative. The world at large has turned against your ideology, the number of places where you can freely share your opinions with others without feeling their scorn shrinks daily, and nearly all social change coming out of our federal legislature is in the general direction of progressivism.

But your anger and frustration aren't a substitute for facts.

Quote:
Claim superiority, shame dissent, proclaim victory.

I mean, it's not really our strategy (in case any of you would like to read our actual plan, instead of a right-winger's caricature of a smoke-filled-room-fantasy version, here it is!), but perhaps it ought to be. Democrats are, on balance, better; the most reliable path to social change is through shaming; and we are kind of on a winning streak, so maybe we ought to proclaim victory more often? Could be fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BlackOuroboros wrote:
Because the best way to change my mind is with petty vandalism and destruction of private property.

I mean...do you really feel as though there aren't enough reasons to not support Trump?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
The best was a shirt I saw today that said "Meh. Whatever, 2016" with a waving stars and stripes. Everyone loved it.

Because nothing is cooler than a depressing mix of ignorance, apathy, and cynicism proudly displayed across one's chest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I'm more than willing to acknowledge that democratic compromise isn't running our government - the majority party of our legislature literally has the publicly stated goal of not allowing any legislation supported by the other side to become law. But I don't agree that our government is bought. That's a reductionist view that isn't particularly helpful in developing a meaningful understanding of the problems we face.
It may not be bought, but it is for sale. :-(

I agree. And one of the two major parties has a platform plank dedicated to fixing a huge part of that problem.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

thejeff --

I'm not the Thought Police, man. Nor the Word Police.

Regarding racism: Acts 13:1 -- the leadership of an early congregation of Christians consisted of a Jew, a Hellenic Jew, an African, an Arab, and the childhood friend of a prominent politician. We could do with more of that, whether involving Christians or not. That's what I would like to see. Likewise on the sexism angle.

Wrong is wrong, man. I won't endorse it.

What the what?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
After lining up the gay and progressive vote to get him to the White House, Obama spent much of his Presidency telling them to buzz off.

Have you spoken to any gay people about this? Because I have. And not a one of them believes that Obama has been anything but far and away the strongest ally we've ever had at the top of government.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dubya in a skirt or Dubya in a wig? Does the costume really mean anything at that point? I know you think there's a night-and-day difference between the two. Not everyone agrees.

Everyone whose opinion on politics I have more than a passing tolerance for does. I have absolutely zero patience for the fashionably cynical belief that the two major party nominees are interchangeable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Some of us maybe just aren't that resigned to the fate our corporate masters have decreed. I KNOW I'm stuck with Clinton or Trump this time. It's next time, and the time after, that I'm looking at. And in my estimation action needs to start before the 2020 primaries. It needs to start now, with unprecedented numbers of people saying, "Look, give us someone we can vote for, mkay?" And you don't do that by agreeably voting for whomever you're given.

This is not how you get Presidents elected. You cannot succeed by starting with the most powerful office in the country and working your way down. If you want a third-party candidate, make that third party relevant in local politics first. It's a long, hard road and the impatient aren't going to walk it.

We've had surges in third party votes in (relatively) recent history. They have not resulted in the change you're talking about.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
2) The attempt to parallel Trump's election to the Presidency with willfully self-destructive health choices is far afield. Neither he nor HRC represent a direct threat to my person, way of life, ideals, values, hobbies, etc. Both certainly represent a "necessary" endorsement of one evil or another. If a choice of Winning Evil One, Winning Evil Two, or Losing Good X is before me, I will not choose either evil.

To many people, one candidate or the other does represent a threat to their livelihood - for some, even an existential one. Even if you are so privileged that you cannot imagine one of the two candidate's policies threatening you (a misjudgment, I think, on your part), you must at least be willing to acknowledge that there are others who will predictably suffer for one outcome or another. You don't believe you have an ethical obligation to make a responsible choice for their sake?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I'm not convinced that a third-party vote or abstention (arguably the same thing) is either pointless or irrational. If Trump or Clinton is elected, but receives only, say, 5% of the popular vote instead of 50%, don't you think some bright political strategist will look at that and say, "Hey, we can clinch the win next time by taking this into account?"

Because our elections cannot work that way. It isn't possible for a major party candidate to win with that kind of a gap in the popular vote, and in the handful of recent cases where a third party has received a significant share of the vote, it hasn't resulted in that party becoming a long-term threat to one of the major parties. (Arguably, it hasn't even resulted in the major party cannibalizing the third party's base by co-opting its policy positions.)

Simply put, history doesn't back your theory.

Quote:
Saying "vote major-party candidate, no matter how bad, or you're a traitor!" sounds like the voice of someone who is desperate to see that the economic and foreign policies of Bush, Obama, et al. not be questioned, and be continued at all costs.

And that sounds like the voice of someone engaged in arguing with a strawman. No one has accused anyone of being a traitor for refusing to vote for a major party candidate. Why do you feel the need to cast the rest of us in that light?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:

I remember when Obama first got elected... people were celebrating in the streets, walking roung saying 'Change' to anything with a pulse, convinced that he was the man to unite a racially divided country and bring back hope for the population...

What has he ACTUALLY done.... nada, zip, zilch... ZERO

If anyone actually thinks that HC is going to do anything of note, you are in for a severe disappointment.

Bring on Trump.... risky?...absolutely.

But you have no chance of doing anything of substantial worth in life if you arent prepared to break eggs. History shows this emphatically.

HC brings nothing but mediocrity, just like Obama.

This is horrifying in both ignorance and in desire. People who believe this need to be consistently and staunchly opposed, and prevented from getting their way. We cannot allow the sort of person who believes that Obama has done nothing worthwhile to decide the direction this country takes. We are better than that. We are smarter than that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
What I'm trying to stress to you is that I have no excitement for Hilary, I might have dread for Trump, but if he gets elected that's Hilary's fault not mine.

I hope you give some serious thought to what you've just said, here. You have a choice. You don't control the candidates, and you don't control the outcome, but you control your vote. And your vote counts for something. If Trump gets elected and you didn't vote for Clinton, it's partly your fault. I don't want to hear "But I'm not in a swing state!" or "But it wasn't a close election!" or "But she wasn't inspiring enough!" None of those things have anything to do with your responsibility as a citizen of the country. You have one job - to make a rational voting decision. You have three options - vote Clinton, vote Trump, or cast no meaningful vote. None of the rest of us are going to accept your excuses.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
They're both, fundamentally, Dodos.

I see them a bit like carrion birds. Circling packs of major-party voters, focused on picking off the wounded, diseased, or disaffected.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Shrug. Our shame democracy is little different then Russia's sham democracy.

This is so ignorant it makes my head spin.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Sorry, I got over-excited by Scott Betts linked transcript and omitted my thesis statement; whenever Trump gives a minority outreach speech, he gives it in a town with a high population of low income minority residents, but he always gives it to an audience of middle class white people who live in the suburbs surrounding the local center of urban blight. That junk bums me out.

Trump is pioneering the new Republican minority out-of-reach strategy!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

That speech, though.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Also, it's not like Bill and Hillary are taking money out of the Foundation.

...

The Daily Kos“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog group once run by leading progressive Democrat and Fordham Law professor Zephyr Teachout. …

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid. …"

More here:Between 2009 and 2012, the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million dollars according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist (2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008). A measly 15 percent of that, or $75 million, went towards programmatic grants. More than $25 million went to fund travel expenses. Nearly $110 million went toward employee salaries and benefits. And a whopping $290 million during that period — nearly 60 percent of all money raised — was classified merely as “other expenses.”

So, Fergie, what you just posted is a combination of a lie and misinformation. We need to have a chat about that. Ignoring, for the moment, how terrible your source (and yes, there is only one source between those two links) is, anyone who tells you that the remaining $290 million of their 2009-2012 fundraising was simply classified as "other expenses" is either lying to you or has been lied to themselves. The Clinton Foundation's tax returns are available to the public on their website. They outline the organization's finances, including expenditures, as well as provide information on programs in which the organization is involved. Unlike the vast majority of charities, the Clinton Foundation spends most of its program money on its own programs. They run a number of enormous initiatives themselves, instead of writing the majority of their fundraising out as grants.

Here is Politifact talking about Priebus' false claim that the Clinton Foundation spends most of its money on overhead.

Here is Politifact talking about Limbaugh's mostly false claim that the Clinton Foundation spends only 15% of its funds on charity.

Here is FactCheck discussing how criticisms leveled at the Clinton Foundation are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how charities work.

You are being manipulated because you a) do not have the level of knowledge of non-profit work required to know when someone is lying to you, and b) have a personal, emotional interest in these stories being true, which causes you to skip over the critical thought with which you might otherwise treat dubious claims like these.

Again, you are being manipulated, and are contributing to a culture of disinformation.

Please stop. You know better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In their defense (not that they deserve one), it's basically a cardinal rule of campaigning that you cannot appear to anticipate anything other than a victory. I'm sure they don't believe it, but they absolutely must come up with a rationalization that allows them to behave outwardly as though they are winning, while facing polling numbers that make it clear that the race is basically unwinnable.

Last election it was "The polls are skewed, the unskewed polls show that we're winning." This election it's "The polls are wrong, because a lot of our voters are scared to admit they support Trump." It's nonsense, they know it's nonsense, we know it's nonsense, most of the world at large knows it's nonsense, but it's infinitely preferable to, "Yeah, we're getting destroyed."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
I may well be wrong, (and dear god help me, I'm reading cnn) but it sure sounds like these are new emails that have not been gone over by anyone.

Nope. These are old emails that the FBI has been in possession of for a while, now.

A non-story, per usual. How many of these are people going to read before they stop leaping to, "Surely, THIS will be the story that actually leads to something incriminating!"

It isn't happening. It wasn't happening any of the hundreds of times people posted clickbait email scandal articles months and months ago, and it isn't going to happen at some point in the future.

But surely, THIS will be the one!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:
Aside from the Trump campaign's releases - including an obviously false assessment of Trump's own health

For those who haven't seen it, I really strongly encourage you to read the assessment in question, and a doctor's analysis of its contents. You can find them both here.

I mean, daaaaaaaaaamn.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Penn Jillette's thoughts on throwing his vote away:

** spoiler omitted **

Hear it in his voice!

Penn Jillette is an angry libertarian with some fringe beliefs, and that isn't a rationale or defense of voting third party so much as it's a protest against being told what to do.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:

Since my last post I was watching the Olympics and sleeping because I am on pain meds because had a tooth extracted today.

I was just watching one of the members of the house oversight committee and he said that there were at least 22 emails that were SAP that the committee has not been able to see since they were almost completely redacted.

Perhaps a select Committee of the house and senate intelligence committees and the heads of the house and senate oversight
committees should be formed to look at the e-mail issue and lay it to rest once and for all. IMO if those SAP emails were on the server HRC should be forced to withdraw from the race by the democrats and put Bernie on the ticket.

Oh, look. Another hit and run post that drops a rumor, suggests insane consequences, and does nothing to address the criticism his last post received.

Shocking.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lou Diamond, you're running on less than zero credibility at the moment. Maybe take a break from spreading misinformation, and engage in some meaningful conversation on this topic instead. Your last two noteworthy contributions to the topic of politics here were victim-blaming protestors for being the targets of violence, and claiming that the Clinton Foundation's tax returns were never released.

1 to 50 of 1,011 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>