Wrath of Dagon

I agree, volo expects people to treat Trump with manners and not be critical I think volo thinks Trump is just some normal well meaning politician but I dont mean to target volo but he reminds me of many of Trumps supporters. They have this almost incomprehensible view Trump is a good guy who treats people well and knows how to " fix " the USA ? Just like you expect them to not be critical of Clinton. She is every bit as nasty and uncivil as Trump. Really? Did Trump ever throw a bible at the head of a Secret Service agent who was sworn to protect him with his life? Did he ever start yelling obscenities at an agent just because the guy said "good morning"? Hillzilla is a hundred times more uncivil, nasty and vindictive than Trump ever was.

Uh, the naked statue of Trump in Central Park? And you have to consider the source here. Is it an accurate comparison if weHave a naked statue of a man, Trump in this case but the statue is just him naked. Its an artist impression.....it means nothing Juxtapose Hilary and Monica with some stupid caption. But Monica had an affair with the husband of Hilary and she was humiliated when it all came out....imagine how Hilary felt? One insult is real and caused real life pain ....and one isn't. How can they be the same? Bruce, i don't know how to tell you this, but Hillary will never love you. Ever. But may be she'll send him a sexy picture of herself if he tries hard enough. Hilzilla was the enabler btw.

Uh, the naked statue of Trump in Central Park? And you have to consider the source here.

It felt to me like they were trying to force me into one of pre-determined paths, very Ubisoft like, instead of letting me find my own solution, like a game of that type should. Also it felt like I was constantly sneaking around offices, reading e-mails. I do that at work, well, minus the sneaking. If I never see another office in a game again it'll be too soon.

Has anyone found DX:HR boring but is having more fun with DX:MD?

Funny how that works. Because right now somewhere around 11% of all wealth in the US is in the hands of just .01% of citizens (.00025% hoarding a bit over 3%). And many of the ones who have the most are still bitching it's not enough. And by the way, the flat tax is the most regressive option out there. A flat federal income tax would later combine with state/municipal taxes for an extremely uneven distribution of tax/earning ratios, punishing the poor(est) the most. You like this idea, why exactly? Not necessarily, most flat tax proposals include the exclusion of significant amount of income at the bottom, so the poor still wouldn't pay any income tax. Right now Mitt Romney only pays 12%, what's fair about that? Having said that a completely flat tax is not the best fit for US at this point. The key is getting rid of all deductions and exemptions, and taxing every kind of income at the same rate. Then there still could be 2-3 different tax brackets. This would produce a much more efficient tax system and increase economic growth.

If your party can't put forward a decent candidate, they don't deserve your loyalty. Our vote is our most powerful tool in enacting change. If we vote for the same party every time regardless of their actions, we are giving up our power. They may not deserve my loyalty but the other party will screw me a lot more. If you want change, you got to work to add run-offs to our elections. Even if one party collapses and is replaced by two or more parties, eventually it'll consolidate into the same corrupt two party (or may be one party) system, if election laws aren't changed.

It's because when you vote for a third party candidate you hurt the major party you're most closely aligned to, thus helping the other major party.

I'm not GD, but it's a situation where you have to keep the bigger picture in mind, like how likely is the candidate to actually damage the country. Trump may be the off the cuff talking buffoon with all the social grace of a British soccer hooligan from the 80's, but as mentioned previously in this thread, odds are he'll be mired down in opposition from both factions. Clinton on the other hand is devious, lying and manipulative enough to actually get active damage done over a 4 year period compared to "just" 4 years of the US being in a state of limbo. Very true. Since Trump is hated by the establishment of both parties, he'll be impeached if he steps out of bounds. The only way Democrats will ever vote for Hilzilla's removal would be if she murders someone on live TV, and I'm not even sure about that. And once she appoints the Supreme Court justice, her power will be all but absolute.

Wikileaks violates privacy: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/08/23/innocent-lives-exposed-in-wikileaks-crusade-against-big-government.html Obviously the reason AP is suddenly interested in this is because Wikileaks has started to publish anti-Hilzilla info.

I don't buy AAA games at all, unless it's something unusual, like Dishonored, which is probably more of an A.

Okay, the idea of a Daily Mail investigation cracked me up I know of no reason why Kessler wouldn't be credible. He's been covering these subjects for a long time and he's the one who uncovered the Cartagena Secret Service scandal.

We should vote for Hillary because she's a warm and caring person: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3753013/Missing-FBI-files-linking-Hillary-Clinton-suicide-White-House-counsel-Vince-Foster-vanished-National-Archives.html

Apparently that's how Arkane Studios themselves were acquired.

Politilie as as objective as the rest of the lying media that claims to be objective. Their job is to elect Hilzilla.

Grim Dawn. Pretty fun game even though I'm not a fan of clicky combat or the skill system.

Yes, and the same goes for ending the two-party system. The only way it would have a chance if there was a movement focused on nothing else.

Breitbart and https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

Speaking of news organizations hiring violent racists: http://lidblog.com/un-happy-25th-anniversary-of-al-sharpton-led-crown-heights-pogrom/

Clinton vs Powell use of e-mails: https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/status/766597315767496708/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The problem is if you don't much care about the racial or ethnic makeup of your country, you can't very well be a "nationalist". Being for the rule of law, separation of powers and the Bill of Rights does not make you an "American Nationalist", or "Civic Nationalist" because those things were not invented by Americans and are widely regarded as universal, i.e. they transcend national boundaries. No need to make up a new political denomination containing the word "nationalism" when one already exists that perfectly describes the set of tenets you subscribe to: classical liberalism. I'm sorry, but "Civic Nationalist" is either a) whitewashing ethnic/racial nationalism or b) an oxymoron. Classical liberalism has come to be associated with globalism. American nationalism is the American government giving preference to its own citizens and in general putting America first. For example you can argue that Reason magazine or WSJ are classic liberals, but they are for open borders all the way. How does that square with the rule of law?

I guess Trump is reading off teleprompter now. Good speech though: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/291931-full-speech-donald-trump-in-battleground-north

It's "American nationalism", not "white nationalism". SPLC is a lying far-left organization.

Yes, a consumption tax like a national sales tax. Generally (at least in states I've lived in) it's applied to all non-essential (meaning not on grocery or medicine) purchases. Although he hasn't released specifics on how it would work or what would be exempt that I've seen. On advantage though, everyone will be paying taxes. Rich, poor, legal and illegal. Because there is no escaping it the over all burden may be less than the income tax. It would certainly cost a heck of a lot less to collect. Of course, he can't wave a wand and make this happen. He'd have to get Congress to buy in. Yes, let's shift all the tax burden on the poor people, since they spend 100% of their income, while the super-rich probably don't even spend 10%.

@Nightshade You think they're misreporting the results of the poll? They look like an old gay-married couple.