imaenoon

I want him off Twitter ten years ago.

Total comedy. I sat down to look at your photo and immediate moved my mouse to click on a card to play it. lol ...And I play on my tablet without a mouse. I think I play the Pathfinder Adventures app too much. <.<

Competition *can* be good and it's part of life at any rate. Competition is not in and of itself good. Think of a football game. One team is on offense and one is on defense. Defense doesn't want offense to get something good. In business, one business wants to produce a good product (good) but wants to prevent other companies from getting their product to the public (bad). Competition has excellent attendant qualities, but it is itself neutral. Same with diversity. It's good in that it brings different ideas to the table and creates ingenuity and those ideas compete to find the most favorable one (good) but also creates wedges and disunity (bad). Diversity also has excellent attendant qualities, but it is not in and of itself good. However, I think inasmuch as parents who are interested are able to find a school that has less exposure to the qualities they don't want for their children, vouchers can be good. ...But bad schools are more or less a symptom of a problem, and that problem exists before school. When the child begins public education already suffering from other issues in his community, how can education by itself solve the problem. As an aside, I have had life saving health care on more than one occasion, and I can give those examples if in doubt. My health care has been excellent with the exception of a couple of years recently when there were issues with changing insurance. I am not rich.

I believe that Finland has, by reputation, an outstanding school system. I don't really know, but I think the wife played a video about it recently. She makes me watch these things regularly.

I still think it's comedy that someone who didn't even get 1.1% of the vote has managed to throw the election on its ass. Did the Illegal Hispanic immigrants steal the election? The Russian mafia (also known as the formal government)? Perhaps a consortium of Cuban, Iranian, and North Korean exiled businessmen? The United States has become telemundo telenovela.

Yeah, The vast majority of teachers I know care about the kids. Most of them go considerably out of their way for the kids. However, teacher unions increasingly concern themselves with liberal politics at the expense of teachers, and I have at least one example. It should go without saying that the teacher unions are not children unions and are not concerned in and of themselves for children. Most teachers are, but the union isn't, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

QFT It's why inner city schools are so bad. I would suggest, however, we should add one more thing: Family > School > District > County > State > Federal.

Okay, assuming these are the problems, what is the solution? ...And is the first step fighting the DeVos nomination? ...Or can you come up with *gasp* a compromise? I would submit the weakest point is the billionaire non-sense. You can get traction attacking her dearth of experience in public education as anything other than an advocate, but the best argument is to come up with a solution that has enough broad appeal to pass. ...And, if we're really talking about DeVos, what's the strategy for keeping her out of the cabinet, or is it all over except the grousing? Wife's a teacher of some three decades, so I get hell over this specific issue all the time, so I understand all about compromises.

I don't think there is some fundamental flaw in vouchers. The idea of vouchers didn't arise out of a vacuum. There are major systemic problems with public education. However, I think the best way to combat vouchers is to fix the problems and the push for vouchers will diminish. The video is horribly slanted, as one would expect from our screaming Turkish friends, but most of the facts seem to be right. The arguments don't reach out past the base, but... *shrug.* DeVos is a believer in it for her beliefs, not tax evasion. Since she's a cabinet appointee, write, call, telegraph, and smoke signal your senator. Don't think that's wasted. Enough people call the senator and (strongly but not angrily or violently) state their view on the issue, the more the senator will take notice. Conversely, if hardly anyone contacts him, you're pretty much stuck with ideology, which makes it harder since Reid decided to buck a couple hundred years of Senate rules. I've been telling my Democrat friends why that was a mistake since before Reid actually went ahead with it. When the Republicans only need a majority for cloture on cabinet and Supreme Court nominations, you can thank Reid.

Grats. I followed you also, but I've only got two followers and I'm pretty sure one of them is a Lithuanian hooker. Keep up the good work. I bought a cheap light beer for tonight. Diet beer brand name of... Natural light? Something like that? Does it matter what it's named? It's light beer.

I still see people saying that Stein is being used as a pawn. I've also seen conflicting reports about whether or not the Clinton campaign was trying to dredge this up. If Clinton were somehow behind this, I would definitely think it was a mistake. I don't know about the back room machinations, but I think I have a pretty good idea about how stuff like this plays out with the public, and I don't think this makes Clinton look good. Other than die-hard lifers, the Clinton campaign achieves something if and only if they pull off a literal miracle and overturn the elections in three states. It's not even a recount. They're going to have to prove fraud and have thousands upon thousands of votes tossed out to win, and that's just not going to happen Assuming Clinton doesn't win, if there's evidence she's behind this at all, it only serves to reinforce what people already think about her, and that ain't good. Generally, you can trust the polls within a certain margin, but I've been saying since before the general election that this time was different. Trump is viewed more favorably by most Americans than Clinton. Listen here, I'm not trying to goad you guys. I'm telling you something you need to understand. Trump's unfavorable numbers were approximate to Clinton's in the polls, but the real number was a little bit off. In the polls, a little more unfavorable to Trump generally, in reality a little more unfavorable to Clinton. Not by a huge margin, but a little off. After the dreadful tape, it got worse, but the public is increasingly inured to 'ism' claims. Right now, it looks like Stein may well have come up with this ploy on her own, but if it's clear Clinton did, she's nailing home her primary unfavorable, which is distrust. Argue away, but I stand by my view on that and I've been pretty spot on about where the polls lie in regards to the actual numbers this entire cycle. I did, however, think Clinton would get her numbers high enough over Trump to win, and she almost did. She's truly a horrid candidate, thank goodness. So, if she doesn't win, she's about as close to a political done deal as anything I've seen. She can't recover from another scandal like this if she's involved, and that will come out. She probably couldn't anyway, but this would just seal the deal. Putatively, her team (and her lawyers) have been scouring the elections looking for a way to do this. As of now, I haven't seen substantiated evidence and, even for Clinton, I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt until sufficient evidence makes it clear. Not court of law clear, just enough to make a rational conclusion clear. Stein, however... if she's a pawn, she's the pawn who takes the queen. Clinton gets absolutely nothing unless she wins. Even if she wins, and I'm sure she'd like to, she's going to get a country where about everyone hates everyone else and the recount will only make that worse, and worse than worse if the public thinks about 100k votes can be tossed out after an election. Stein? No one would care about Stein if it weren't for this. She's already said the excess will go to Green party training. She's already surpassed her original goal for raising money. Where's the downside for her? She'd be a footnote if not for this recount. I don't care whether the Clinton campaign somehow colluded with her or not, she's the one playing them. At best, the Clinton campaign would be a willing accomplice. As for people who see an avenue of attack against Trump via his holdings and conflicts of interest, this recount buries that attack. The irony that a recount muddying the waters so much that something that is far more of a substantive issue is mind boggling. I don't think even the conflict attack makes much difference anyway. The public won't care about the conflicts and there's nothing in the law that requires Trump to divest. However, there could be a way to prevent Trump and his family from actually administering his holdings while he is in office, and this recount and the 'throw accusations like spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks' approach is going to inoculate Trump against legitimate lines of attack. Don't die on every hill, people. Die on the hill where your death might actually bring a victory.

I typically look for local stuff and I count LA as local (the city not the state). I've only heard the 4th podcast, but I plan on going back to hear the first three when I get the chance.

I'll be honest, LetyS, I don't think Hillary really wanted to get in on this. This would have to be an awfully long con to overturn the election. Honest to goodness, Stein has to be taken seriously. She managed to get money for the Green party, cast doubt on Trump, and force Clinton's hand to take action that will with almost absolute certainty not help her or the Democrats in any way. I'm an idealist, but I have to admire clever work when I see it, and this is clever. I would rather see Clinton in the white house than Stein, but this is truly genius. She and her staff are truly to be commended. I say that with complete sincerity. I think it's devious, but there are some master strokes that you have to own when you see them, and this is it. If anything can actually put the Green party on the road to viability, this is it. It probably won't (understatement) but it's a start. Both the Republicans and the Democrats better take heed of this because it's apparent that Johnson didn't have the chops for the campaign (I still like the guy, but he really melted down in the last month), but Stein is going long and she just might make it.

I can only speak for myself, but I played with a party of six and it didn't take a couple of weeks to win. ...and I lost a really good card off ezren in the 'Greed room.' Cudos for the name, though. That's a pretty good one. Not being facetious. As for 5.4, I trust that it irritates you, but it just wasn't that bad for me. I did have a problem with a bug in it, though, and that made me restart a couple of times. I was not keen on that. There are a bunch of little bugs in the game I find irritating, but I've played the app literally like 90%+ of the days since its release and I still enjoy it. When 5 released, I deleted all my parties and started a six man and a four man from scratch. I think I'll recreate the Val and Lem show again also for the hell of it.

Naw, Bruce, the only good thing I can say is that Stein is paying for the recount and bilking clueless libs to do it. I think it's simply bad for the country to have a recount under these circumstances. It perpetuates the idea that the election is not legitimate without any credible evidence, something Stein herself admits while still insisting it's to make sure votes count. I would be against this if Trump lost. In fact, while Trump could have said, "As long as the returns are validated and legitimate, I will accept them," he instead talked non-sense about suspense and whatnot. So now we've come full circle. I won't give a direct quote, but I told a group of people on July 29th of this year that I would respond to Clinton winning the election by referring to her as "my president," praying for her continued good health, and affording her all the respect due her office. We salute the president, not the person in our country just like we salute the officer and not the man (or woman if you are one). So, since I'm accepting everyone else at his or her word, I can assure you, I would definitely be against this recount under these conditions either way. ...And I've absolutely no doubt that Trump's going to prevail in a recount, so it's not that I think Hilary's gonna win. However, fair enough. When Trump wins the recount, it will be an opportunity for folks who claim it will lend legitimacy to pay up on their bet. ...Or will there be some reason for yet another recount? Perhaps not in three states that could swing the vote their way, but only in the districts where they think they can overturn the election? Maybe Broward county?

Can you imagine the vitriol if Trump were challenging the results in three states which all three needed to be overturned and the combined total was 90-100k votes? I know everyone here is possessed of personal integrity and would have called for a recount in such a case (well, a slight dig, but I do hope that's a true statement nonetheless). Yeah, Trump's a tool, but people in these parts are bat**** crazy and some of them have visceral hatred for the guy. Geez, get a grip. However, I do have to admit that Romney's speech about Trump during the primary was pretty funny and a lot of it was spot on. Trump *did* condone torture and talk about targeting the families of terrorists, which I think most Americans, including probably the majority of his voters, would balk at doing. I just think most of supporters, even the die hard ones, didn't take all these comments seriously. Someone cited that as the dichotomy of this election where his supporters always assume he's being figurative and the press always assumes he's being literal. I just think he's a bit unhinged, but I still voted for him. I'd like the Clintons to be out of politics, at least the two older ones. Chelsea... we'll have to wait and see about her. Any nerd rage coming my way will only serve to nourish my soul. Anyhow, Romney's philippic against Trump. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/mitt-romney-speech.html?_r=0

The card game has ways to adapt to difficulties for solo play which aren't really an option for the app. I disagree with the idea of tailoring a game for extreme play, but I think the card game is actually pretty good about allowing experimentation. You're playing against a system and there's not death penalty for forfeiting, so if things get too tough you can always forfeit and come back at it. With good luck, you can win the scenarios without too much trouble. I don't like solo play because I like having at least a couple of characters for variety, but 5.4 isn't that bad after you get used to it.

I truly love vanilla bean, but the brews with vanilla bean haven't always appealed to me. It's kind of hit or miss. Last night, I had (too much) of a sort of wine made with honey and plum. The abv shouldn't have been that high, but I was starting to get hammered pretty early so I switched to this interesting beer I got from Costco... Golden Road Brewery Back Home Gingerbread Stout.

I haven't read all of your post, Elerond, but I will. Maybe later tonight, but no later than tomorrow evening. I won't respond, however. I'll leave my response here which is this: at some point we have to let our arguments stand. I've had my say, and I'm willing to let you have yours. That's fair. I won't argue with you about this again because I'm happy to accept your arguments as ones of conviction rather than convenience. Whether or not they are is between you and God. Don't get me wrong, I've scanned your points, but I won't insult you by pretending I've given them a full reading yet. This election is truly exceptional, and that's coming from a man who turned 18 in military training and has voted in every election, local, state, and national, since. I don't know how long I'll be here, and that's irrelevant anyway. I hope my convictions win the day, but it doesn't matter. I believe in the Republic. If, as a Republic, we decide to invade Sicily and spread our navy thin through adventure, I'll live with that. That's what it is to be a true Republican. Accept what the people say and live or die with it.

I'll ask one question, and I'll take you at your word on my honor. Would you have said this if Trump had lost three states by a combined total of between 90-100k votes and had to win all three to win? Would you be for the recount no matter what? I can tell you, I wouldn't. Not under these circumstances. I didn't understand Stein's angle at first, but now I just think she's brilliant. Kind of like the ad execs for cigarette manufacturers. As for you, Pidesco, if the Democrats are sitting on something juicy about Trump, I'd wonder why the hell they didn't pull it out before the election. This whole thing has become such a cluster **** it's redefined the meaning of fubar.

BruceVC linked an article that made several excellent points, one of which is, if you were going to defraud people, why not do it in states where the count was supposed to be closer. Take out Wisconsin and throw in states like NV and NH. There was a reason that the Clinton campaign started sending surrogates and money into Pennsylvania. Look, Elerond, I agree with you in principle that recounts can be necessary. I can assure you, and you can believe this or not, but I would *not* have called for recounts in a reverse situation. Three states? With 20k+ in one and approximately 60k+ in another? Overturning a few hundred votes in one state is tough. Overturning 60k+ votes in one state? Just read what that knife dude put above. I agree with that entirely. So, when the recount's done, are you going to accept that as legitimate, or come up with another reason why Trump won unfairly?

Actually, I think it's great. Now that I understand what Stein is doing. Conning a bunch of weepy Clinton supporters to throw down cash in excess of the cost for a recount and then keeping that remaining money in Green party coffers. Terribly cynical, but that's politics for ya.

Thank the Lord, God rest his soul.

That's an excellent article. I think, of her bullet points, the first is most compelling. I agree that it's a toughie for me. I think someone mentioned a waiver, but it would have to be legislative, which could be a Pandora's box. I think the second point, and the author spent quite a bit of time fleshing out that point, is not necessarily the case. I see the point, but she's forced to cite exceptions to her own rule in order to argue why they're exceptions. Taking her whole point, Mattis could very well succeed. I don't know. On the third point, she's spot on about the worry, but it's an irrelevant point. We can't wish for someone who will be a yes man, and Trump might very well ignore any candidate who would serve to argue against him. If point three turns out to be a hard fast rule for anyone who will be able to temper Trump, we're probably screwed. It was a great read, though. I really wish Keane had taken the job. I think he has the perfect temperament combined with an excellent poker face.

I've revisited my thoughts on this. I thought Stein was somehow trying to tighten her connection to the Democratic party. Seeing the amount of money she's raised and the fact that she says that the extra will go to Green party training and activities, I now think she's trying to gin up money for the Green party. It's terribly cynical and undoubtedly bad for the country, but at least now she's acting like a proper politician. Makes it easier when there isn't someone clouding the issue with proper principles. Now we won't have to worry about that from her. To Elerond and the people calling for this, the deal was a recount that showed Trump winning would put to rest the issue. I'll have to make sure I'm around long enough to see if that happens. 60 thousand votes in a state is in practical terms an insurmountable lead for a recount. If that's overturned, I firmly believe that it will lead to real and protracted strife that will dwarf what we've seen so far. There's no way for that amount to switch in a modern American election without there literally being a tremendous amount of malfeasance either in the initial vote or the recount. EDIT: But then again, left's motto has increasingly been, "recount until we win!"