Wrath of Dagon

Wrong. With two liberal parties, three conservative parties, and voters equally split ideologically the liberal parties would both get 25% while the conservative parties would get 16,6%, which would result in two liberal parties in the run-off, just like I said. You did finish primary school, right? I meant equally split amongst liberal and conservative as you said. Obviously the parties wouldn't all be equally split, there'd probably be a couple of large parties (one on either side) and a few smaller but still viable parties. With run off election you could safely vote for any party, knowing that either the two bigger parties would be in the run off, or a smaller alternative party would take place of one of them. At least it would be a lot safer than now. There are centripetal and centrifugal forces acting on party size and number, the trick is to balance those to get close to the desired number of parties. I got Magna **** Laude from Rice University, what did you get? *lol*

Yes, and re-interpreting it this way makes it meaningless. This is a different country now from the time you're referring to. Certain states and localities will be only too happy to ban guns. As far as nationally, we're safe so long as Republicans control the House, but once that is lost so are our rights, mark my words. Btw, at this point in 1988 Dukakis was up by 17 points, though I'm not making any predictions.

Again, the reason it never did is because the Supreme Court was protecting the Second Amendment. That will no longer be the case once there's another liberal Justice.

They don't have executive power, but they have full judicial and partial legislative powers if they choose to use them. Now you're contradicting yourself. That's exactly what I said earlier. Do you think they won't jump at the chance as soon as they get it? Remember, SC can do anything, there are practically no limits on their power. Yes but it can only do it in a case that is before it. To give them the chance to overturn it it would take someone with standing to file a lawsuit, it would fail, appeal and have it fail to the federal appeals court, then the federal district court, then the Supreme Court. At any point it could be scuttled by any court refusing to hear it. The SCOTUS itself may refuse to take it because Heller is recent. It a hell of a hill to climb. It would take years. A lot of them. A lot can happen in that time. And lets say it did. Lets say in 2022 (because six years is how long the original suit took) the court overturns Heller. That does not repeal the 2nd Amendment. It will be in jeopardy from the legislature but they have been made to pay a high price for gun control before. And the NRA will still be around and will still be powerful. Congress will still face the wrath of the voters every two years. And even if they were inclined they would not start with complete prohibition. Yes, there is a danger that should be fended off now by making sure people like Clinton don't get to pick to many judges (for many good reasons besides this one) but that danger is not imminent. It's down the road a ways. just over the horizon. There's probably a test case already working its way through the courts just from the draconian anti-gun actions California recently took, if not a test case can be easily manufactured. I don't think it'll take anywhere that long since all the liberal courts will be complicit, also remember any federal judge's decision stands until overruled. Any case they hear which has anything at all to do with the Second Amendment gives them the chance to throw out the entire Second Amendment, you're whistling past the graveyard.

Means nothing. It was a 5-4 decision, now it will be a 5-4 decision the other way, and that's before Hilzilla gets to appoint some more Justices. Now you're contradicting yourself. That's exactly what I said earlier. Do you think they won't jump at the chance as soon as they get it? Remember, SC can do anything, there are practically no limits on their power.

Can you understand 5-4 Conservative majority vs. 5-4 Liberal majority? You are taking an incredibly complex situation and grossly simplifying it. The Supreme Court can not just throw out the Heller case, or McDonald vs. Chicago. Your gun rights were considerably more at risk 30 years ago than they are today. You also might want to notice that even the dissenting opinions in the Heller case varied, in fact you should read how different the tone of Breyer and Johnson are, because it makes it clear they are not really on the same page. Simply put, this isn't a black and white, liberal versus conservative issue. You should also note that Ginsburg and Breyer are both identified as liberal, and both are well into their later years. They aren't going to live forever. Kennedy is up there as well, of course, but he's often identified near the middle instead of a full conservative. So yeah, there is pretty much no evidence that as soon as Garland is elected, the government is going to take away all our guns. That's just hyperbole. Why can't they just throw it out? And who the hell is Johnson? The liberal theory is that Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right, so only government sanctioned organizations are allowed to possess guns. I don't know of any liberal Justices who disagree with that, the only reason Second Amendment is still around is Kennedy swings both ways, conservative in this case.

Then you don't know anything about any of the Supreme Court Second Amendment decisions.

Can you understand 5-4 Conservative majority vs. 5-4 Liberal majority?

Why? The left are aching to repeal the Second Amendment, then their power will be absolute. Nor will there be any limits on presidential power, it'll be a competition between the oligarchs and mob rule from then on. Not to mention Hilzilla is likely to be able to appoint more than one Justice. I was hoping to avoid the Civil War this time.

Yeah, much like the whole "Russia, please hack Hillary" thing, this was pretty clearly a not-particularly-coherent attempt at a joke. I wouldn't call the coverage particularly biased, though-- you'd see over-the-top headlines had any candidate said something like this. This is what the media does-- spot a "gaffe" and broadcast it far and wide. It's the easiest kind of campaign reporting to do, and it draws eyeballs far better than policy analysis or poll results. (It probably feels like bias against Trump because he says idiotic stuff like this so regularly. Shockingly, when you nominate a candidate who thinks that observing common standards of decency in public discourse is a bad thing, you're going to get a candidate who says a lot of poorly considered stuff.) No it is bias against Trump. In one week Hilzilla lied about what Comey said about her, said she "short circuited", had to be virtually carried up a short flight of stairs, had the Orlando's terrorist's father seated right behind her while she commemorated the victims, just had e-mails released detailing how she used the State Department to pay off Clinton Foundation donors, and probably half a dozen other things I'm forgetting. Not to mention she explicitly hoped for Obola's assassination in 2008, which the media never mentions. And yet it's all "Trump, Trump, Trump" Socialism for thee but not for me: http://ijr.com/2016/08/668817-fresh-off-his-campaign-to-make-socialism-great-again-bernie-sanders-buys-600000-summer-house/

Hilzilla herself had said something far worse than that: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html?_r=1 If it was any issue other than the Second Amendment, no one would've jumped to the conclusion he's talking about an assassination. Having said that his remark was rather cryptic, so more ammunition for the media to attack him with.

Could be just the four degrees of separation thing. Edit: Also remember the Clintons are connected to many more people than an average person. Just Bill's mistresses have to be in the thousands.

That's funny because we still have redlight cameras, and they're annoying as hell.

Only if it interferes with homosexual activity.

Hmm, I thought you were a lawyer. Anyway, Texas requires you to wear seat belts when driving.

Only true if your car is parked.

That's not exactly what the proposed law says: "A bill under consideration in the state Legislature calls to prohibit "any activity unrelated to the actual operation of a motor vehicle in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle on a public road or highway." That means no cup of coffee for those sitting in traffic, no munching on that breakfast burrito, no time to groom. (No, the law does not target coffee verbatim.)" Notice the interference with safe operation part, since you're endangering other people. Edit: Not exactly election related, but I have to say I'm siding with our ambassador here: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/08/08/rodrigo-duterte-u-s-ambassador-annoying-homosexual-son-btch/

Both parties live in an ideological fantasy world of their own, so apparently they don't know. Edit: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/07/hillary-clinton-needs-help-getting-stairs/ We'll have to see if Darth Nihilus can hold herself together with her willpower alone until after the election.

Sorry, was looking through old posts, I forgot which was the last post. Run-offs is infinitesimally better, but the exact same basic problem still remains - you need to eliminate spoilers on your side, while encouraging them on the other. This leads, effectively, to the exact same system which is in place today. Suppose the left-wing parties would field two candidates (let's call them "Bernard" and "Hillary") while the right-wing parties field 16 or so candidates. The cancer in FPTP shows clearly again, and the right-wing voters are forced to strategize and avoid spoilers while the left-wing voters laugh as their candidates are the ones who will likely win the run-off. One of the few scenarios where run-offs would be helpful and not induce gamism is if there were only three candidates, ideologically evenly spaced. The next closest thing to proportional representation is really preferential voting. With a long enough list of preferences, this approaches proportional representation systems in that you can actually safely vote for the person you sympathize with, without risking acting like a spoiler. When electing a president - one person - this system is actually half-decent, but when using this method to elect multiple people to some assembly you get the typical retarded FPTP malfunctions such as arbitrarily brutally favouring parties with certain geographical distributions, and so on. You've actually made my point for me. In your previous example, with 2 liberal parties and 3 conservative ones, equally split ideologically, you'd always have a liberal and a conservative in the run-off, so no problem. With 16 conservative parties they would of course always lose, so unless brain dead they'd consolidate into fewer parties, just like the 2 party system works now. And that's what I said, we want 4-5 parties, not 16-100.

Why don't you quote the post where I answered your question? I said having run-offs in elections would fix this.

I'll give myself credit for my foresight back then. And btw, the British general who refused Clark's (aka Hilzilla's best friend and adviser) insane orders was Michael Jackson.

New Vegas had shooter mechanics too, it's what you do with them that matters. I'm expecting a lot more than a straight-forward shooter, but we'll see.

A President has to make decisions whether or not to go to war. A person running for President should not be guilty of exposing highest government secrets, so your question is a non-sequitur.

It's from Arkane Studios, so I doubt they'll make a generic shooter.

Wasn't Quistina saying things exactly like that?