Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW?
Posts
Feldschlacht IV
View playlists
CloseWhile they did disagree on pretty big issues, they're pretty alike on most ones.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-alike-426301.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-on-the-issues-2015-9
They're not ideologically that different.
No offense to you, because I know you're not the one saying it, but this reads like dumb hyperbole not based in factual evidence. I have been following politics since I was a little kid (read: since before this election, and Obama's even), and my parents for longer. Hillary Clinton can be pretty shady but she has been ideologically consistent for decades.
As much as I am against mega-corps, at this point they're an integral part of our society, and suddenly pulling out the rug from under them would absolutely wreck the world economy and the country (and by extension the world). I don't like the fact that Wall Street got a ton of bail outs, but it is true that if they didn't, we would now be messaging each other via carrier pigeons until one of us got killed in a raider attack a la Fallout. Mega Corps have become a bedrock of our existence as civilization, and if you want to change that, it's far more practical to slowly dismantle them, and not just smash them outright.
I can't defend the rest of it, as because I did say, she is not perfect. But she's not evil, either.
So did almost everyone else. Keep in mind it's the job of a politician to represent the electorate, and while I've always supported gay marriage, the majority of the country did not.
When they do, you be sure to let me know.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/26/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-alike-426301.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-vs-bernie-sanders-on-the-issues-2015-9
They're not ideologically that different.
author=Blind
Not because of sexist/gender reasons etc., but because it infers she doesn't really stand for anything. She's held no moral compass, no obligation to the greater good, no overall consistency - and certainly no fear of the DNC holding her accountable. She changes her song and dance for whoever will fill up her pockets
No offense to you, because I know you're not the one saying it, but this reads like dumb hyperbole not based in factual evidence. I have been following politics since I was a little kid (read: since before this election, and Obama's even), and my parents for longer. Hillary Clinton can be pretty shady but she has been ideologically consistent for decades.
author=Blind
The fact is, she's supported some pretty awful ideas in the past; she worked alongside a politician who voted against the Civil Rights Act, she supports mega-corporations, Wall-Street banks, corrupt industries such as Monsanto and BioAgriculture/Pharmaceuticals etc. She openly opposed gay marriage until as recently as two years ago. I can even agree with Trump that she's been an outright liar in regards to the TPP - she voted for the Bill's passing well over ten times, and now claims to oppose it. Something about that isn't quite right...
As much as I am against mega-corps, at this point they're an integral part of our society, and suddenly pulling out the rug from under them would absolutely wreck the world economy and the country (and by extension the world). I don't like the fact that Wall Street got a ton of bail outs, but it is true that if they didn't, we would now be messaging each other via carrier pigeons until one of us got killed in a raider attack a la Fallout. Mega Corps have become a bedrock of our existence as civilization, and if you want to change that, it's far more practical to slowly dismantle them, and not just smash them outright.
I can't defend the rest of it, as because I did say, she is not perfect. But she's not evil, either.
author=Blind
She openly opposed gay marriage until as recently as two years ago.
So did almost everyone else. Keep in mind it's the job of a politician to represent the electorate, and while I've always supported gay marriage, the majority of the country did not.
author=Sated
I'm sure someone can come up with something better than a system that gives everyone equal value when it's readily demonstrable that some people shouldn't be trusted to tie their own shoes, yet alone have a say on the future of a nation.
When they do, you be sure to let me know.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Satedauthor=Feldschlacht IVI'm sure someone can come up with something better than a system that gives everyone equal value when it's readily demonstrable that some people shouldn't be trusted to tie their own shoes, yet alone have a say on the future of a nation.author=SatedYes, but it's better than the alternatives.especially with how little the electorate seems to know (or care) about the country but has strong opinions despite this.Literally every election ever, and also why democracy is awful.
Sadly, the individual's right to vote holds very little weight in who becomes president.
And I'm not too fond of Trump's willingness to blindside the American people. By his own admitting, he doesn't pay into the system he wants to rule over and turns his nose up at anyone who does because it's "not smart". He's a businessman, not a president. His top priority is to turn a profit, even if that means selling people into slavery. His view of the individual is what's most frightening about the prospect of him becoming president.
You could be an top tier Edgy McEdgePants and say "politics as usual *tips fedora*", but people still vote in good faith.
Dyhalto
7536
author=Blindmind
The DNC is a corrupt establishment
It pisses me off that Bernie could have completely annihilated Hillary with the email scandal back when people still gave a hoot, or by calling her out on her Libyan debacle, but chose not too. I'm of the mind that he was playing wingman to her all along, kind of like how Ron Paul did for Romney back in 2012. Basically, he absorbs the not-Hillary votes and throws them in the garbage because he has no intention of winning.
On the bright side, the view for America's future is actually optimistic. Two major things are likely to happen. First, the Republican party implodes in on itself. We're already seeing the process begin, with Republican officials distancing from or outright attacking Trump. It'll accelerate as some of them start moving Left because that's what the electorate wants, and the hard Right will denounce them as turncoats. Second, the Democratic party will split into two pieces. One half will be the DNC we know and
And by extension, the non-Americans among us will benefit because all roads lead to Rome.
But this is assuming the Republicans don't get control of all branches of government, pack the Supreme Court with fascists, and dismantle the democratic system in a way which gives them a permanent Republican governance.
That's why this presidential election is so critical, and not to be poo-pooed with fancy pants "protest votes" and shit.
@Sated
From the Confucian Analects : When confronted with a populace, first make them prosperous, and secondly educate them. Then self-government becomes possible.
Basically, democracy requires a material basis. Starving people can never be free people.
I'm not exactly sure how it came about, or how it stayed alive all this time, but I really do appreciate Canada's multiparty system.
It was almost dead, but since the Liberal Party promised voting reform, I think it will make the party system much stronger.
It was almost dead, but since the Liberal Party promised voting reform, I think it will make the party system much stronger.
author=Hexatona
I'm not exactly sure how it came about, or how it stayed alive all this time, but I really do appreciate Canada's multiparty system.
It was almost dead, but since the Liberal Party promised voting reform, I think it will make the party system much stronger.
Magic
(I'm betting it'll be one of the rankings/run off voting systems as it'll give the Liberals a huge innate advantage but I admit I haven't been following Canadian politics for some time. I blame living in Mordor, Justin breaks wind and half my family rail about it for days)
Blind
2262
author=Feldschlacht IVFor the record, I'm not anti-corporation.
As much as I am against mega-corps, at this point they're an integral part of our society, and suddenly pulling out the rug from under them would absolutely wreck the world economy and the country (and by extension the world). I don't like the fact that Wall Street got a ton of bail outs, but it is true that if they didn't, we would now be messaging each other via carrier pigeons until one of us got killed in a raider attack a la Fallout. Mega Corps have become a bedrock of our existence as civilization, and if you want to change that, it's far more practical to slowly dismantle them, and not just smash them outright.
I can't defend the rest of it, as because I did say, she is not perfect. But she's not evil, either.
If I had to identify, I'd probably be closer to Libertarian ideologies; limiting excessive regulations, the goodness of people, the importance of small communities vs globalism. I think a lot of positive comes from the private sector - pretty much everything we take for granted, like you said.
IMO, what isn't right is for Hillary to call out Donald for paying nearly zero income tax (which I'll admit was a brilliant move lol - it probably won her a lot of votes), but also sit there and pretend she isn't partially to blame. Our politicians ENABLE these corrupt Billionaires to thrive, to dictate their policy-making. Despite rambling about it every election cycle... these "loopholes" are somehow never closed - the issue is never resolved. (And frankly, why would many of them want it to be?) Hillary has a proven track record of being paid-off, being dangerously close to corporate influences, etc. If not Trump himself, then dozens of others like him.
So, it's just a little bit ironic. XD
author=Blindmindauthor=Feldschlacht IVFor the record, I'm not anti-corporation.
As much as I am against mega-corps, at this point they're an integral part of our society, and suddenly pulling out the rug from under them would absolutely wreck the world economy and the country (and by extension the world). I don't like the fact that Wall Street got a ton of bail outs, but it is true that if they didn't, we would now be messaging each other via carrier pigeons until one of us got killed in a raider attack a la Fallout. Mega Corps have become a bedrock of our existence as civilization, and if you want to change that, it's far more practical to slowly dismantle them, and not just smash them outright.
I can't defend the rest of it, as because I did say, she is not perfect. But she's not evil, either.
If I had to identify, I'd probably be closer to Libertarian ideologies; limiting excessive regulations, the goodness of people, the importance of small communities vs globalism. I think a lot of positive comes from the private sector - pretty much everything we take for granted, like you said.
IMO, what isn't right is for Hillary to call out Donald for paying nearly zero income tax (which I'll admit was a brilliant move lol - it probably won her a lot of votes), but also sit there and pretend she isn't partially to blame. Our politicians ENABLE these corrupt Billionaires to thrive, to dictate their policy-making. Despite rambling about it every election cycle... these "loopholes" are somehow never closed - the issue is never resolved. (And frankly, why would many of them want it to be?) Hillary has a proven track record of being paid-off, being dangerously close to corporate influences, etc. If not Trump himself, then dozens of others like him.
So, it's just a little bit ironic. XD
And that's absolutely something we can take her to task for and hold her accountable to. But with that being said it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that Hillary and Trump are two sides of the same coin. They're fundamentally opposed candidates, with one option being significantly worse than the other.
Dyhalto
7536
author=SnowOwl
Well, there's always actual democracy (which Murrica isn't).
Murica has the most sophisticated democracy in our time. It's the Westminster system that's backwards.
author=Blindmind
If I had to identify, I'd probably be closer to Libertarian ideologies
Ick.
I went through a Libertarian phase once. Needless to say, I went through it, and never looked back.
You would do well to dump it like a ton of bricks too.
Oh boy.
RMN is talking about politics again.
Portland Retro Gaming Convention is coming up, this will be my first convention so I'm pretty excited.
RMN is talking about politics again.
Portland Retro Gaming Convention is coming up, this will be my first convention so I'm pretty excited.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=Corfaisus
Is it as good as it sounds?
Well, it sounds awesome, so I hope so! Maybe I'll get this issue. ^.^
author=CorfaisusWhat, the drama surrounding it?
Is it as good as it sounds?
I'd imagine there'd be drama considering Playboy's history. The lady is cool either way. Playboy and I have never had issues before and we still have none now~<3
(Actually, that sounds kind of pervy. XD Which is fine, but I've never actually had an issue of Playboy which I wanted to clarify.)
(Actually, that sounds kind of pervy. XD Which is fine, but I've never actually had an issue of Playboy which I wanted to clarify.)
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Lol, glamour shots on the cover of Playboy with a hijab, I can't stop laughing at the irony. The whole point of wearing one is supposed to be to keep people from lusting after you!
Not necessarily, many muslim women wear them simply as a symbol of modesty and morality (which could include avoiding lusting eyes, but maybe not). And then the next day they take it off because they feel like it or whatever. Depends on who you're talking to - although it is super ironic when you think about it like that. :P
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Well that's what I mean, it's an attempt at modesty in a front page glamour shot, a show of morality while appearing on the cover of Playboy. It's absurd and hilarious. I kind of love it, in the same way I love American flags that say "Made in China" on the bottom, and diesel trucks that pick up recycling bins.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
I think it's important to reflect on what this video talks about between 6:10 and roughly 11:30.
SnowOwl
5188
author=Dyhaltoauthor=SnowOwlMurica has the most sophisticated democracy in our time. It's the Westminster system that's backwards.
Well, there's always actual democracy (which Murrica isn't).
Let me ask you this: Do you think the people that make up the majority of a democracy, the middle and lower class, has any real power in Murrica?
The westminster system also has problems, I agree, and it can probably be argued that actual democracies where the majority rules are literally nonexistant, but saying that America especially is a democracy is laughable.
