| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the next serious song will be their first, they actually inspired Sublime. I can't link it tonight, as I don't get the computer (The General has broken through her writer's block) but I highly recommend Huntington Beach, especially if you've ever been there. :-)The Ziggens, The Waitress Song there one video i know of, not my favorite song
Ok. Totally loving the Ziggens. Kind of "Silly Surf Punk Rock".
Speaking of Sublime, my brother's great embarrassment was they they (Chico) killed their lead singer.
And yeah, visiting my brother in Chico was an experience: ONE $3 Long Island Ice Tea at a local bar was enough alcohol to get both me and NobodysWife drunk. It was probably on the order of 12 ounces (~350 mL) of hard liquor in a single drink, served in a carafe!
Tasted good, though!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is your name?
What is your quest?
What books do you read?
What are your favorite Monty Python moments? (in movies or MP Flying Circus series)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You play MMOs? Which ones?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is your name?
That response is classified.
What is your quest?
To be the best GM I possibly can...
What books do you read?
At the moment, nothing, as my time is ludicrously booked. In general, I prefer sci-fi. George R.R. Martin has a lot of really good stuff: His best book is Tuf Voyaging, IMHO, and I did really enjoy the first few books of the Wild Cards series. I've read The Lord of the Rings at least half a dozen times, and I thoroughly enjoyed the Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, and Hunger Games series. On the other hand, George Ifrah's A History of Mathematics is a riveting, if time-consuming read.
For a while I was receiving Easton Press' "100 Greatest Books of All Time", and I honestly wanted to go through them, but time is not my friend at the moment...
What are your favorite Monty Python moments? (in movies or MP Flying Circus series)
- Bicycle Repairman
- The Sam Peckinpah picnic- The assault on the French castle in the Holy Grail
- The bad translation phrasebook ("My nipples explode with delight")
Too many others to mention; I own the series on DVD, and both kids watched through them before they were 8...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You play MMOs? Which ones?
As mentioned, time is a real killer for me, so I am rather displeased that my friend introduced me to Rift. I now spend 60-120 minutes a day wandering around, foraging for crafting materials, but otherwise I do my utmost to stay away from time-consuming video games because... they take too much time...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So here's an example week for me:
05:30 - 06:20: Up, coffee, foraging in Rift
06:30 - 11:30: Work, plus tidying the house, stretching, and Paizo
11:30 - 12:30: Lunch break, including a walk and working on the garage
12:30 - 16:00: Work
16:00 - 18:00: Helping the kids with their homework, doing the budget, prepping games
18:00 - 18:30: Cooking dinner for the kids
18:30+: Depending on the evening, gaming with the kids (MoTu), prepping games (We), or socializing with my friends (ThFrSaSu). Notice there isn't single "curl up with a good book" evening in there anywhere.
Saturday: I run a game (Crimson Throne or Jade Regent at the moment)
Sunday: I play in Skull & Shackles or whatever else is being run
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How far into Skull and Shackles are you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Favorite AP to play in?
To GM?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How far into Skull and Shackles are you?
We just finished Book 1 and had a monthlong hiatus between Books 1 and 2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Favorite AP to play in?
To GM?
I haven't gotten to actually play any AP beyond Book 2 with the exception of Carrion Crown, which was a pretty rotten AP in many ways. (Disjointed plot, low wealth, and a dysfunctional group of players, most of whom wouldn't lift a finger to help a fellow party member.)
So Book 1 of Skull & Shackles was fun, but a bit lacking in direction. "It's another day. Here are your chores. OK. Nothing happens. What do you do that evening? OK. It's another day..."
We spent a lot of time sitting around the table wondering, "Are WE supposed to be doing something different? What's going on? Is this all of Book 1?"
We did Books 1 & 2 of Second Darkness, and it was a LOT of fun, but it kind of petered out and died.
So yeah, not so much on the "playing" side of things.
In terms of running, #1 by a country mile is Rise of the Runelords. I loved loved LOVED running it!
The first time I ran Crimson Throne, I LOVED it. The second time through, with a bigger, more dysfunctional, more questioning group, I see a lot of the cracks in the story line and the logic. I'm still enjoying running it, but there are a lot of, "Why doesn't xxx just do yyy?" that didn't come up the first time around.
The other hugely fun one is Serpent's Skull, but I think we can lay that one squarely on my kids. Books 1 and 3 are giant sandboxes, and letting kids run amok in sandboxes is a hoot.
Amusingly, I didn't like running Kingmaker beyond Book 1 because it abandoned it's "sandboxy" feel for a "board game" feel: "Now we're building a kingdom. Here are the rules..."
Not nearly as fun for me...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can I get a head?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can I get a head?
Work hard, eat sensibly, and Super Glue...
...lots and lots of super glue...| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our primary is in ten days or so, I might need to huff that super glue just to make it through.
To decide whom I vote for, I'm flipping a coin.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oooh, politics!
I try to vote independent, unless one party or the other puts up some candidate so execrable that I have to hold my nose and vote for the other side. I used to proudly declare that I'd never voted major party except to vote against men named Bush.
Then along came Obama with a message of unity and hope, and a platform of single-payer health care, and for the first time in my life in 2008 I voted for a major-party candidate.
And I consider that as having been a mistake on my part; I have not cared for him as a president. If you asked me to name one thing I disliked about him, it would be his choice to turn single-payer health care into a mandate of, "You know those health insurers who have destroyed health care in the U.S.? Now you HAVE to pay them!"
But really, I live in California. We're going to vote Democratic, now and forever. So my vote only really matters in terms of local and statewide ballot initiatives. So those I carefully research, spend hours deciding on, and vote very, very carefully.
As for candidates? I'm in one of those states where I could cheerfully vote for anyone at random, and I could guarantee that unless I'd voted for the Democratic party front-runner, I would have just "wasted" my vote.
Of course, I'm a "Socialist Libertarian", so I'm never going to see a candidate I care for, so it is what it is.
(My world view can be summarized as, "Individually, people are decent. One they get into groups of 5 or more, they are the most vicious, villainous scum on the planet. So the purpose of government is to ensure individual freedoms while at the same time preventing organized groups from being mean and vicious to people." Not exactly a popular mindset...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does voting for president in USA works anyway?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How does voting for president in USA works anyway?
It's funny -- our Founding Fathers thought just as much of people en masse as I do (very very little), so in spite of people calling us a "Democracy", we're really a republic.
=======
So, in order to qualify to be president, you need:
(1) To be a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. (This distinguishes the office from most other offices, which require the much-lesser, "Be a U.S. Citizen" requirement. For example Arnold Schwarzenegger qualified to be governor of California but is not qualified to be U.S. President.)
(2) To be 35 years old.
(3) To have lived in the U.S. for 14 years. (Because children of U.S. Citizens born on foreign soil are still "natural born" if both parents are U.S. Citizens, this is measurably distinct from #1.)
=======
Now we move on to the incredibly convoluted part. Because the Founding Fathers did not want yokels selecting their president, and because they believed in state's rights, each state was given a number of delegates who choose the president. It was supposed to be based on the number of congresspeople each state had, but it's a little off. The "electoral college" (the people who choose the president) has 538 people. The combined houses of Congress have 535 people. Meh, close enough. I suspect the final 3 represent our territories (Samoa, Guam, etc.), but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.
It's a simple plurality system: Whoever first gets more than half the votes (so 270 votes) wins the presidency.
So basically, you get 538 people who choose the president, and half of them have to agree on "this guy", so this could take forever and a day, especially since they don't actually MEET. (They all announce their results from their state capitols.)
=====
Your next question should be, "Wait a minute! Who chooses those 538 people?"
The answer is, "Each state chooses its own, in any manner it feels like, as long as the Supreme Court doesn't deem it stupid or unfair."
Most states ignore this, and whatever candidate wins the popular vote in the state (see? The people DO matter eventually) wins all of the electoral votes in the state. So the people who get sent to the electoral college are pointless; they could be trained monkeys. It's an honorary position. All they do is say, "I vote for whoever the people voted for."
Somehow, this has not been deemed stupid nor unfair. (Don't get me started on my state having FIFTY-FIVE votes, but even if the people vote 50.5%-49.5%, all fifty-five go to the person who got 50.5%).
A small amount of research lists only Maine, Nebraska, and Virginia as states that aren't just a, "We dump all our electoral votes on the top popular vote-getter," so yeah, it's *almost* universal.
=====
But that's basically it; every state has a number of Representatives based on population, plus two senators. Every state has a corresponding number of electoral votes. And the vote is 100% dumped on whoever wins the popular vote in the state.
EDIT: An before the great legal minds jump all over me, yes, there are a lot of subtleties involved. Colorado mandates that all electoral votes go to the candidate winning the popular vote, whereas California's law is, "Some candidate wins the popular vote. His or her party gets to choose the electors. And those electors are bound by law to vote for whomever that party says." I'm sure it's a 'safety feature' in case the candidate dies or some such, but it's quite convoluted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does voting for president in USA works anyway?It's funny -- our Founding Fathers thought just as much of people en masse as I do (very very little), so in spite of people calling us a "Democracy", we're really a republic.
*cough* Those two are not exclusive. Democratic refers to the source of government and republic refers to the government being handled by elected officials - so the USA are democratic (legal power comes from the nominal consent of the ruled) republic (legal power is wielded by elected individuals).
=======
So, in order to qualify to be president, you need:(1) To be a "natural-born" U.S. citizen. (This distinguishes the office from most other offices, which require the much-lesser, "Be a U.S. Citizen" requirement. For example Arnold Schwarzenegger qualified to be governor of California but is not qualified to be U.S. President.)
That I knew since I watched "Demolition Man" where I learned that for Schwarzenegger to become president the people of America had to amend the constitution.
(2) To be 35 years old.
As is here.
(3) To have lived in the U.S. for 14 years. (Because children of U.S. Citizens born on foreign soil are still "natural born" if both parents are U.S. Citizens, this is measurably distinct from #1.)
As I recall there is some contention about the last one and it was never put to actual legal test if being born on foreign soil makes one "natural born citizen" or not. Or was that finally legally solved beyond any doubt (e.g. a valid court case)?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you get kids and family members to start on D&D?
The 3-4h commitment is quite a bit, and the rulebooks are even longer.
How do you get players to remember the fundamental rules, when it's not their first time playing?
Oh my goodness, have YOU opened a can of worms!
The first is easy: We all watched, "Gamers: Dorkness Rising" together. It is an awesome, awesome movie. The kids DEMANDED to play D&D after that. I ran a "family" campaign of Curse of the Crimson Throne, and even as our Aikido friends learned that we were gamers and dragged us into their gaming group(s), the kids insisted on keeping a game going.
So it's no longer a "family" game, as NobodysWife has moved on, but that original "family" game is now two 12-year-olds, four 14-year-olds, and a late-40's-dad. And it shows no signs of letting up.
The second is far, far harder: At the moment, I'm running three games: One for the kids, one for 6 adults, and one for 2 adults and a kid. And it's the 6 adults who can't possibly be bothered to keep track of the rules, and who constantly ask me to look stuff up for them, usually mid-combat, and frequently when it's not even their initiative. Is it any wonder their combats take 2-3 hours each, whereas the kids' combats take only 20-30 minutes?
I'd love to say, "I make every player responsible for knowing the rules for his or her own PC," but that only works if your players are willing to do it. Unfortunately, my kids have proven far more willing to do it than my adults. Go figure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*cough* Those two are not exclusive. Democratic refers to the source of government and republic refers to the government being handled by elected officials - so the USA are democratic (legal power comes from the nominal consent of the ruled) republic (legal power is wielded by elected individuals).How does voting for president in USA works anyway?It's funny -- our Founding Fathers thought just as much of people en masse as I do (very very little), so in spite of people calling us a "Democracy", we're really a republic.
They're not exclusive -- most "modern" or "first world" governments are considered democratic republics (you vote for the person who represents you, then that person writes/votes on the laws, etc.). I just find the U.S. amusing in that the most powerful positions in government (President, Vice President, Supreme Court Justice, Speaker of the House of Representatives) are NOT elected. As I said, a classic case of, "OK, we know you're all idiots, so we're going to give you the illusion of power, but we're going to make sure the critical power is kept in others' hands."
(OK, OK, the Speaker is technically elected to office, but it's the House that chooses its Speaker, NOT the voters.)
(3) To have lived in the U.S. for 14 years. (Because children of U.S. Citizens born on foreign soil are still "natural born" if both parents are U.S. Citizens, this is measurably distinct from #1.)As I recall there is some contention about the last one and it was never put to actual legal test if being born on foreign soil makes one "natural born citizen" or not. Or was that finally legally solved beyond any doubt (e.g. a valid court case)?
It was never in legal question. That was just right-wing blowhards trying to undermine Obama's legitimacy. As far as I know, every lawsuit filed against Obama was dismissed out-of-hand as being "without merit", so at least according to the courts, there was no question here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the issue was raised with John McCain (born at the Panama Canal) and I want to say Ted Cruz (someone this cycle was born in Canada to American parents, pretty sure it's Cruz) Trump has threatened to sue over it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and as long as we're here:
Other than that, I'm always on FaWtL, and occasionally causing trouble in the Rules forums...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the issue was raised with John McCain (born at the Panama Canal) and I want to say Ted Cruz (someone this cycle was born in Canada to American parents, pretty sure it's Cruz) Trump has threatened to sue over it.
Oh, yeah. It gets raised every time someone was born outside the U.S. runs for the presidency. And always by their opponents. Who always happen to be right-wing Republicans. Go figure...
(I'm pretty sure it was McCain's primary opponents who brought it up, not the Democrats.)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, do you play any tabletop RPGs other than Pathfinder these days?
Which ones have you played in the past?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, do you play any tabletop RPGs other than Pathfinder these days?
Which ones have you played in the past?
The long answer may be a while, so here's the short one:
Then roll with it.
In terms of games past:
I'm pretty sure there are more, rarely-seen games. I *know* there's another one similar to Tunnels & Trolls where you combine all your dice, but I forget what it was called.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I'm not allowed to pollute FaWtL with politics, I figure I can pollute my own thread with my own long ramble, brought on by the kids asking, "If Trump wins, are we moving to Canada?"
So the fact that my kids are both adamantly anti-Trump to the point of asking whether we are moving to Canada is clearly an aspect of either other kids talking about Trump, other kids' parents, or the teachers. I'm afraid I suspect the teachers. And I'm still of the strong opinion that if it's not a politics or religion class, the teacher shouldn't be addressing politics or religion.
- A career criminal and lawyer (are those redundant?) so beholden to big business that we might as well stencil, "This presidency brought to you in a joint venture by Mosanto, Bank of America, and AT&T" on the wall of the White House.
- An egotistical, misogynistic, racist "businessman" whose track record includes FOUR bankruptcies and a net worth that is LESS than if we'd had a drunken chicken randomly selecting stocks (the Index fund) for him. Yeah, he's a "genius", all right. Just like Forrest Gump was.
- Really, America? Is this REALLY the best you can do?
You know what? I really don't give a d**n about either candidate. I think both will be terrible, terrible presidents. Probably towards the worst in history. And the idea of voting for either of them sickens me. So no, neither of them is getting my vote. Period. The idea that, "Oh, this one issue is SOOOOOO important that you HAVE to vote for xxx" is utter b+@!$@*s.
[/rant]
It's sad that, in either presidency, a strong argument could be made for dictatorial governance. After all, with "this is what happens when the people govern..." as an opener, I could even see such things being compelling. I'm never going to buy it, of course, but it still makes me sad that it could be presented and used to make a reasonable-looking case.
I'm personally hoping that, once whatever major abuse happens does, regardless of the candidate, impeachment and dismissal are handled quickly, and that the Vice is better. I'm not holding my breath. Similarly, I'm hoping that the weight of the office gives pause to whomever wins it, and maybe causes them to change course so the inevitable abuse doesn't occur. I'm similarly optimistic about results. (I'm not, in case it wasn't clear, at all optimistic.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's sad that, in either presidency, a strong argument could be made for dictatorial governance. After all, with "this is what happens when the people govern..." as an opener, I could even see such things being compelling. I'm never going to buy it, of course, but it still makes me sad that it could be presented and used to make a reasonable-looking case.
I'm personally hoping that, once whatever major abuse happens does, regardless of the candidate, impeachment and dismissal are handled quickly, and that the Vice is better. I'm not holding my breath. Similarly, I'm hoping that the weight of the office gives pause to whomever wins it, and maybe causes them to change course so the inevitable abuse doesn't occur. I'm similarly optimistic about results. (I'm not, in case it wasn't clear, at all optimistic.)
LOL. NobodysWife feels the presidency should be chosen by lottery. "OK, who wants to be president? All of you guys? OK, you're excluded. Now, everyone else? The person with ticket #1356256 is now dictator for 4 years..."
I like it, except it wouldn't be so easy to exclude those who WANTED the position.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And as long as I'm waxing political, may I say that I was joyful to see the lawsuit over open primaries in California thrown out. (The short version is, the registrar (or whoever) had the absolute audacity to force independents to send in a form to be able to vote in a party primary.)
My feeling is, if you don't have the guts to join a party, then you have no business voting to select that party's candidate in the primary.
(Says the man who will proudly NOT be voting for a presidential candidate in this primary, since he's a registered independent...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This crap would never happen in a parliamentary system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And as long as I'm waxing political, may I say that I was joyful to see the lawsuit over open primaries in California thrown out. (The short version is, the registrar (or whoever) had the absolute audacity to force independents to send in a form to be able to vote in a party primary.)
My feeling is, if you don't have the guts to join a party, then you have no business voting to select that party's candidate in the primary.
(Says the man who will proudly NOT be voting for a presidential candidate in this primary, since he's a registered independent...)
I would agree, if primaries weren't funded with public money. If they were entirely, 100%, absolutely no public money involved whatsoever, yeah, but as long as the government funds it with taxes taken from everyone, everyone should have a right to vote in the primaries.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say we make them all wear silly wigs again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say we make them all wear silly wigs again.
One of them already does. He won the Republican nomination.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's a travesty. There's nothing silly about that wig.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a Whig in this election?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's one thing silly - that he is still trying to act like it isn't one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree, if primaries weren't funded with public money. If they were entirely, 100%, absolutely no public money involved whatsoever, yeah, but as long as the government funds it with taxes taken from everyone, everyone should have a right to vote in the primaries.And as long as I'm waxing political, may I say that I was joyful to see the lawsuit over open primaries in California thrown out. (The short version is, the registrar (or whoever) had the absolute audacity to force independents to send in a form to be able to vote in a party primary.)
My feeling is, if you don't have the guts to join a party, then you have no business voting to select that party's candidate in the primary.
(Says the man who will proudly NOT be voting for a presidential candidate in this primary, since he's a registered independent...)
I can see that, and can somewhat agree.
I just note that I *can* vote in the primaries. I just can't vote for a particular party's candidate.
So I'll dutifully research all the idiotic state initiatives that I'm going to vote against anyway, then research the local ballot measures that I actually care about and vote for or against them accordingly, then blissfully ignore the whole primary nonsense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a Whig in this election?
We're making a comeback baby!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm rather amused at the direction the discussion is going, if only because the last time we actually had a viable party spawn from the depths of an existing party was way back when the Republicans broke off from the Whigs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude! We totally had a chance!
Dude! We totally had a chance!
No. I'm afraid you never did.
EDIT: Now, if you'd just been the Blue Party...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you're all doomed! Doomed I say!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in case people are wondering how NobodysHome votes (and I'm sure they aren't):
Weird. According to my sample ballot, that's all I'm voting on. Usually it's a lot more than that. Ah, well, I guess I'll find out tomorrow when I go in and vote...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FIE DIE DIE!!!! All of you can DIE!!! You eat my kind! I will DESTROY YOU ALL!!!
Total side note: NobodysHome loves fruitcake.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, this is easily the most depressing election in my lifetime. As of Tuesday (after California votes), we are almost certainly going to be presented with two (realistic) choices:
- A career criminal and lawyer (are those redundant?) so beholden to big business that we might as well stencil, "This presidency brought to you in a joint venture by Mosanto, Bank of America, and AT&T" on the wall of the White House.
- An egotistical, misogynistic, racist "businessman" whose track record includes FOUR bankruptcies and a net worth that is LESS than if we'd had a drunken chicken randomly selecting stocks (the Index fund) for him. Yeah, he's a "genius", all right. Just like Forrest Gump was.
- Really, America? Is this REALLY the best you can do?
So I'll be voting third-party. And what amazes me is the number of people who not only say, "You're throwing your vote away", but who say, "You're helping the party I oppose because xxx."
I do wish that third parties were viable here in the U.S., though I'm not nearly so pessimistic about Hillary. Worst case scenario I can imagine with her is that some scandal blows up in her face two years into her first and only term, and our first female president leaves a bad taste in America's mouth.
Worst case I can imagine with Trump is that he spends eight years mucking things up, and then installing himself as Grand Chief in Commander indefinitely after conning his fanatical marks into thinking that "I just need one more term to repair America and start winning again..." And then eventually declaring himself the United States of Trump's Grand Capitalista, thus finally dropping the charade of democracy. All the while building walls both figurative and literal, oppressing minorities, and starting all sorts of wars, while simultaneously telling his Christian majority supporters that the world and their own government is persecuting them. (Except for him of course.)
(I know that many Christians do not support Trump. I mentioned the ones who do, because they epitomize the sheer bald-faced lies and hypocrisy that Trump is able to get away with by telling people what they want to hear.)
All that said, I haven't looked into all the Hillary scandals so maybe I should be as afraid of her. What scares you most about her?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do wish that third parties were viable here in the U.S., though I'm not nearly so pessimistic about Hillary. Worst case scenario I can imagine with her is that some scandal blows up in her face two years into her first and only term, and our first female president leaves a bad taste in America's mouth.
Worst case I can imagine with Trump is that he spends eight years mucking things up, and then installing himself as Grand Chief in Commander indefinitely after conning his fanatical marks into thinking that "I just need one more term to repair America and start winning again..." And then eventually declaring himself the United States of Trump's Grand Capitalista, thus finally dropping the charade of democracy. All the while building walls both figurative and literal, oppressing minorities, and starting all sorts of wars, while simultaneously telling his Christian majority supporters that the world and their own government is persecuting them. (Except for him of course.)
(I know that many Christians do not support Trump. I mentioned the ones who do, because they epitomize the sheer bald-faced lies and hypocrisy that Trump is able to get away with by telling people what they want to hear.)
All that said, I haven't looked into all the Hillary scandals so maybe I should be as afraid of her. What scares you most about her?
Scandals I can ignore. Some of Chicago's greatest politicians were also its most corrupt.
It's her extremely pro-big-business stance. In my personal opinion, the greatest threat to U.S. politics today (and the consumer in general) is the consolidation of companies into a handful of mega-corporations that have all the rights of individuals (thanks, Supreme Court!), none of the responsibilities ("You can't throw a corporation in jail"), and the monetary wherewithal to swing national policy ("Money = Free Speech").
My impression of Hillary is that she's never met a corporation she didn't like, and she'll be even more likely to be influenced by big money than Trump. You can at least say of Trump that money isn't an issue for him, so he's going to vote his conscience. Unfortunately, we all know that's a sick, twisted, convoluted conscience that perceives a different reality from the rest of us. But at least I'd trust him to stick to what he believes in, whatever that happens to be at the moment. With Hillary, I just see her steering national policy towards whatever the megacorporations desire of her.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just know Hillary will continue Obama's "lets ignore the constitution and extend the power of the executive branch" pattern. Also, she won't overturn Obamacare. We need legitimate universal healthcare, not this b%#~#&@* half assed tax people who can't afford healthcare b!$@#%#~.
Bernie Sanders 2016.