Before all this impeachment stuff actually happened, I was worried that pursuing it would help Republicans more than it helped Democrats, knowing the result would be acquittal no matter what.

If anything her statement reinforces that the tent is too large in that she, or anyone, would have to make such a statement regarding the nominee.

There’s no “burn it down” option. This is a fantasy people need to let go of before our democracy really is gone. There’s whoever wins the Democratic primary. Or there’s Trump. There is no third outcome this time just like there was no third outcome last time.

Good.  I think all the popular vote detractor arguments are seriously out of date.  We live in an information age.  Candidates no longer need to make train and bus tours through little towns to directly press the flesh with the electorate.  Rural voters aren’t going to be irrelevant because they still vote and…

That also comes with its own problems. If all of them are at the same time, only the 5 largest states would matter.

Okay, reading up a little I don’t feel like such an idiot (well, not about this anyway). There’s apparently no clues you can find in the game and since he’s essential, you can’t kill him to find out he has a synth component unless you cheat.

Am I the only one who didn’t know Sturges was a synth?  I must have played that game three or four times by now.

You’re completely missing the rest of the definition, which provides context.

Yeah, I think people make this too complicated. We know any one of them is better than Trump so it’s really not a question of which one has zero problems. It’s which one is just better than the rest. Most positives. Fewest (because none have zero) flaws.

Doesn’t matter if the father was a citizen.

All of that is right except the bit about his first three kids being anchor babies. They were citizens at birth anyway through their father’s citizenship, not just birth on American soil.

Yeah, look at all those western action horse train games. You really nailed it, bucky.

I’m not missing your point. I’m disagreeing with it. No, “everything” about RDR does not suggest it places art over money. Shit, it’s aimed squarely at the biggest demographic in AAA action games right now. That’s not a risk. That was the pitch to the money people: “Look, it’s a western action game with a gritty…

It’s probably not that specifically that’s a problem for them. They all believe in some sort of slippery-slope fallacy that if they let the libruls get away with this now, it’ll be one gun a year next and then eventually NONE!

Well, you’re certainly spinning your wheels and not answering my question.

I’m not sure what you mean. The rest of us just call that the “Elder Scrolls Development Process” that they’ve been using for the last three games at least.

Sadly, it’s not a crime anyway. The ICA is not a criminal statute. This is going to be just like all the Trump admin folks who have violated the Hatch Act. Nothing will happen.

There’s a field of icebergs out there. The problem is revealing them all. It was looking like Trump could just stonewall all the way to November, tying up all the subpoenas in courts that Bitch McConnell has been furiously stocking with RWNJ judges.

Is Red Dead Redemption (either of them) designed to make the greatest profit?

Right, that was my first thought too, “So.. is this just like when anybody in the Trump admin violates the Hatch Act?”