Nah. In the same way consoles didn't kill the PC, this won't kill the Rift. One is for the average consumer. The other is for the high-end enthusiast.

Jesus, folks, they're talking about magic as in the performance art, not the harnessing of arcane forces. There are plenty of things to criticize Republicans for without making shit up.

No it wouldn’t. If that were the case they’d be testing for alcohol consumption as well, but they’re not. Alcohol makes for more "unsavory characters" than weed ever has.

It's a gross violation of privacy. We don't allow employers to search our homes for drugs. We don't allow them to search our vehicles for drugs. Why should we allow them to search our bodily fluids for drugs?

I’m describing a situation that has happened multiple times throughout history. 3rd party candidates siphoning votes away from established party candidates (sometimes resulting in those party candidates losing elections) has happened many times in many democratic countries. This isn’t something I’m making up: this is…

Now you threaten to burn down the entire conversation rather than address my point, which is what I would expect from someone so childishly naïve: just destroy everything in a tantrum.

Unless I’m operating heavy machinery (a potentially dangerous liability), why would they need to drug test me? If my smoking is resulting in sub-par work, fire me for my sub-par work. If my smoking is not resulting in sub-par work, what reason would they have to fire me? What I do at home is none of their fucking…

You’re going the wrong direction. We shouldn't be okay with the NFL disciplining weed smokers because everyone else does it. We should be asking why we allow everyone else to do it.

I don't think you know what guy you're actually being here.

I lived Anchorage, and my experience with mushers was the exact opposite.

If someone mapped my apartment late on a Saturday night, the toilet would probably be labeled Chorizo Ruins.

Any vote for any candidate has the exact same impact: that candidate’s vote tally increases by one. That is the only impact a vote has.

Any candidate can win if they receive enough votes.

I’ve just explained exactly how it is true. A vote for a candidate that can’t win accomplishes nothing. A vote for a candidate that can win helps prevent the opposing candidate from winning. This is simple logic. Refute it with logic of your own if you can, otherwise you're just making noise.

They don’t “go down,” but not voting for them means they don’t go up, either, which amounts to the same thing. If I say “I am going to vote,” then my vote is either a +1 for one candidate, or a +1 for the other. If I refuse to vote, then neither candidate gets a +1. That means if I refuse to vote, that’s essentially a…

It is if they were otherwise going to vote for the republican candidate. Or rather, it’s half a vote for the Democrat, since an actual vote for the Democrat would equal +1 democrat, and -1 republican vote, whereas voting for a 3rd party candidate would be +0 democrat and -1 republican vote. The point is that the…

I appreciate your idealism, but it’s naïve and not the least bit realistic. There have been multiple instances in our history of a disruptive 3rd party candidate sweeping up votes that otherwise would have gone to one of the two major party candidates, resulting in a win for the other party. I'm not willing to take a…

They'll refuse to confirm him.

GOP chairman Reince Priebus said he wants to “make sure Democrats have to answer to the American people for why they don’t want voters to have a say in this process.”

Not really. They’re all just chasing the ratings, same as they’ve been doing for 25 years. Trump’s campaign just happens to be the most entertaining circus in town right now.