There’s a lot of variation in this one. A big part for me, with walkthroughs, etc., is that games are often pretty terrible at conveying basic “this is how you play me” or “here are what the mechanics are” information. Which drives me pretty nuts.

Again, you just like saying things that sound good. Which, granted, this is the internet. But, just think about it for more than 8 seconds. She’s “not courting moderates” but instead “actively campaigning to partisan Republicans” because “liberals weren’t going to just vote for her by default.”

Local politics, most likely. State level, or even county level.

I hesitate to jump into this like ... at all. But, generally courting moderates is a very good strategy to win elections. “Courting liberals,” if you’re the Democratic nominee, is usually a waste of time and effort. Why would you bother? They should already massively prefer you to the GOP nominee (e.g., Mike…

You have received several critical comments. And, unfortunately I am going to pile on.

[sigh] Here you go:http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/wisconsin-voter.id_.pdf

Apparently not. Or, it varies wildly by state. There are numerous studies and judicial findings to this effect. I don’t claim to understand the causes, but the state of the world — that thousands of people do not have these IDs — is not in dispute.

I believe one of the court cases in Texas has detailed judicial findings to this effect. There are apparently large numbers of people who lack, or find it difficult to acquire, the relevant ID. They number at least in the thousands.

This is a very reasonable comment. Except for one point. It tars the ... I guess the liberal side of things(?) with “name-calling, tirades of obscenities, and physical violence ...” Let us please not pretend that the GOP has been complete and total angels willing to entertain reasonable discussion, extending…

Primaries? Local politics? The Senate and House Members? These would all be places to push for an agenda along those lines. I believe it’s been the right-leaning playbook for the past 20 years, and with great success.

None of this is really true. Or, at least it’s not true as a matter of having 2 parties. So, to the extent it matches the facts it’s not driven by that issue alone. Two parties, itself largely a product of the voting rules, generates relatively moderate parties. Now, you might be saying “look at the Ds and the Rs,…

This, alas, has been the standard for D&D adventures for many years. Although I was grooving on Savage Tides back in the day.

I ran a whole campaign where I started each session with “roll initiative” and then went back to explain in media res what was going on. It worked for a novelty thing.

But, to test it out you’d need such a bizarre set of circumstances that it’s just not going to happen. The current third party candidates lack virtually everything it takes to get elected, like money, a ground game, voter recognition, and so on.

@D3. No. It’s not. The character’s motivations make little to no sense. It casts Tyrael, one of the most important characters in the series at this point, as a careless idiot. One who eventually becomes the representative of Wisdom. The Lord of Lies both hates deception and is terrible at it. And, so on.

There’s a very clear story, it’s just told non-verbally. Road Warrior has about 4 plot beats. Fury Road has ... 3. The story critique of Fury Road is easy, but lazy.

The first episode is Baker v. Carr. I like the RadioLab guys, and also kind of know a lot of the people they tapped for the show. The problem I have with it is, at least not in the first episode, there isn’t much law in it. It’s more a story about personalities.

I’m never gonna pick up NMS, it’s not my speed at all. But, “very very large” is probably operationally equivalent to “infinite.” That being said, I never played Borderlands for it’s “bazillion guns.” I played it for its cool ones.

There are some nice thoughts, if obvious ones, in this little post. But, the fact remains that all the influence-peddling that might be happening in the Clinton Foundation would just move to another, almost assuredly less transparent, source. That’s the current world we live in. You can easily start an organization…

But, this is exactly the situation without the Clinton Foundation. All the same exact people have to do is start their own Super PAC and do exactly the same exact thing. We might love or hate Citizens United, but it is the law of the land. Singling out the Clinton Foundation as a means for influence peddling is silly…