Skarpen

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute

If both candidates are equal then the outcome doesn't matter and you can stay home and play videogames.

Let's see if politics will play into this. My bet is that this vaccine if proven succesful will be shunned by many because the "wrong country" made it. Did you seriously just slipped Russian strippers in the list?

I doubt that. Just another examples of politics interfering with researchers and science. There are numerous fields you cannot even touch or publish results that are nkt in line with political correctness because you will be fired even though you just want to genuinely conduct a research on a subject without any underlying biases.

Wow. Cudos to the developers to include that option and cudos to Shady for pulling this off.

I was quoting a line from Dave Chapelle SNL sketch Election Night as a joke.

Muslim Ban is the most shameful thing America has ever done.

That's just playing semantics imho.

I never advocated that any business can do what they want. Do what you want is more of an anarchist statement and I'm rather far from anarchist worldview. I disagree about the analogy. Your definition of monopoly is either to simplistic or way outdated. Or both, actually. One doesn't have to be the only provider of something to be considered monopoly. Microsoft is hardly the only provider of computer operating systems and other programs yet they have been the target of many EU anti-monopoly laws, because the sheer amount of market they cover makes them in essence a monopoly. And comparing Facebook to LinkedIn is ridiculous. Very different platforms with very different tools. Basically you claim that if one doesn't have access to AutoCAD you can use MathLab because it's also a computer program. Very ignorant comparison and I don't think you are ignorant person. What you loose by not being able to use SM like Facebook was already covered nicely by Darkpriest a page or two ago. Look it up. Facebook and Twitter accounts are made in your name. Creating a false account is a violation of service and will get you banned. So back to square one. Not a solution. And in case of public figures it's counter intuitive to create account not under your name. Yes. I don't see why not. However the notion that antisocial people are in droves on Social Media is quite intriguing

I'm not a business private pool is not a good analogy. If however I would run a public pool and ban a kid because he is black or have a political t-shirt I don't like or his parents are democrats then yes I would have no problem by government saying I cannot do that. Oh, it's exactly what's happening. SM are banning people for political, social etc. views and opinions. I could draw a line on criminal activity. I'm not unreasonable.

Why shouldn't or couldn't anti-monopoly laws apply to Social Media companies who are monopolies? I understand that maybe right now existing anti-trust laws might not fit, but laws can be updated or brand new laws introduced. I'm sorry but if a Christian baker can be legally forced to provide service to people he don't want to provide service and don't agree with then how can you logically explain inability to force SM to provide service to people they don't want to provide service and don't agree with?

Marrion Barry: B**** set me up. Pelosi: Same. I will point you to a couple of posts above about anti-monopoly laws. Yes regulating monopolies is intrusive but I think necessary.

I think it's a basic function of government to get involved when someone is being oppressed.

I've got one message from this type of system in my life. About a hurricane a day after said hurricane hit my town. I did get warnings from my townhall Facebook page before so YMMV. I think in your examples of boycott the word "certain" is essential. You don't boycott "banks" but one of the hundreds of them. Imagine however there is only one bank and you get your account terminated because you donated to party X. Yet you need an account to get your sallary, make payments, taxes and so on. Sure, you might get by with cash only, but I encourage you to try summarize how many bank operations you do monthly and if all of them could be changed to cash transactions. The same with airlines etc. Would that be worthy of government intervention in those private entities? It's not like I invented anti-monopoly laws here guys. Not sure about USA per se, maybe someone could post about the anti-monopoly laws there, but many of you are from EU so you know that stuff. Plenty of EU anti-monopoly resolutions applied to the biggest corporations like Microsoft.

After reading this: I think anyone that did vote for Trump because he promised a Muslim ban should pat themselves on the back

How? The basic function of government is to uphold the law. Small government doesn't mean "your on your own" in interaction with bigger entity. Should "small government" skip also fighting with mafia because it supposed to be small? What is your definition of small government? That's like saying: you dont like cameras in your house then go back to tent. No, people cannot be forced to not use modern comodities because the providors of those comodities use their position as a monopoly in bad ways. Social medias are platforms for comunication and information if we like it or not. If there is an emergency or danger in your area where will be the information available first? Being forced out of those limits people in every way. So no, boycott of Social Media is not a solution to this.

This is not true according to evidence and witnesses. But it's ok for you to have this opinion. It's also ok for someone else to have different opinion on the matter and people should not be punished in any shape or form for having that opinion. As always the "mistake" happened to a conservative that had different view then the regressive left, huh? It's obvious the "mistake" claim is always given when sufficient fuss is made. But what about dozens other people who get banned because of their view on the issue who don't get headlines when this is happening to them? I would be perfectly happy to migrate to another platform, but there isn't one. Twitter, Facebook and Youtube are basically monopolies and monopolies are not treated like a normal provider because standard market rules don't apply. That's why any sane country have and enforce anti-monopoly laws. Imagine that in the name of fighting global warming normal cars are banned and only electrical cars can be used and that your only choice is Tesla. No imagine Tesla declares that because women are bad drivers only men can drive them. What would you tell women? To switch to bikes if they don't like the terms of service? Of course not. I think it's to much power in the hands of owners of those companies to allow them to shut off any opinions and ideas they are not approving.

Another attempt by social medias to control the narrative and force people to follow only opinions they approve. Kyle Rittenhouse lawyer was banned from Twitter for publicly defending his client: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8689559/Kyle-Rittenhouses-lawyer-plans-sue-Twitter-account-blocked.html This is something very concerning when people right to defend themselves publicly is denied. I've seen many people getting banned, suspended and blocked on social media for their opinion on Kyle Rittenhouse and what happened in Kenosha. This is Orwellian beyond imagination.

@majestic Brygo Barter check gives you extra 200$ so nothing much in terms of missing out. However barter 6 requires 10 skill point so it's 3 levels worth of investment assuming you start with 1 point at character creation. Giving that you will be level 7 or 8 when you even have the option to meet him I would say it's doable. I dont think W3 have to many skills. Way, way less than W2. I went with 3 rangers ( I want to have 3 companions) and have most of the skills covered. Excluding weapon skills I'm missing wierd science, animal whisperer and survival. I'm not interested in whisperer and survival is covered by companion. So having a 4 PC squad will cover all skills assuming you will focus on one weapon skill per character. Giving that all weapon skills (except unarmed) cover two weapon types it will give you all the diversity you need. I like the game so far. One thing I don't like is stealth which is wierdly done. There is no sneak mode, you cannot even crouch while moving. There is a stat that say how quickly (in seconds) you can be discovered, even if you run directly at the enemy. So forget about getting sneak attack by more than one character. After nerfing intelligence which now doesn't affect the number of skill points you get per level (it gives you flat one time bonus 1 skill point for every 2 points in intelligence) the best attribute is charisma which gives you a bonus to experience (30% at 10). So my advice is to give Charisma 10 to main character at start and skills that are used often like lockpicking. This is so he can level up quickly (choose perk for another 5%) and quirk for extra skill point every other level. You don't have to worry about other attributes because you get attribute point every level after level 4 and if my math is correct at the max level (50) you should be 1 point short of maxing all the attributes. There is also a trick you can use. The level of the created characters in your base is based on average level of the group so you can level up your squad by removing them and then then re-recruit them if they are behind the more experienced leader. Oh, and when you know dialogue will end in a fight choose the option with [Attack] description. That way you have the first round.

What the heck is soccer?

Sometimes it's not about the actual topic of debate but the overall presence and performance of the candidate that gets people to vote. For example I don't really remember the Trump/Clinton debate topics but I do remember that Trump owned the stage and his presence. I'm sure that many people were fond of the way he talks rather than what he talks about. The "how" is as much important as "what" in politics and elections. In Poland Trzaskowski lost because people were afraid his win would mean they will lose the social benefits the ruling party set in place. Sitting president Duda won only 6 out of 16 districts but he won them very high 60-70% while the rest were only slightly won 51-55% by Trzaskowski. The 6 disttict happen to be the poorest ones and highly dependable on social benefits. I think if there was a proper debate Trzaskowski could at least somewhat deflect this accusations and convince people he as a president couldn't take those away. But as there was no actual debate people only got to hear one side.