Pidesco

Must mean every white guy born in the US is technically a Native American. Those tricky definitions. They're hard for everyone to nail down just right, even the left. That's a gigantic fallacy if I ever saw one. Native Americans are, these days, a specific ethnic group with the USA. Unless you are actually arguing that almost the entire population of the USA is not "home grown".

I fear we're all underestimating the rapidly growing discontent of the western middle class with the status quo.. To the point that I fear both Trump and Le Pen have a very real chance to win in their respective elections. Immediately after the Brexit vote I thought that there was that risk, but Trump seems to be intent on staying within his primary talking points, which appeal to the Republican base and almost literally no one else in the US. His VP pick appears to be dire, and has already been lambasted even before it has been officially announced.

Well the LP used to be a fringe with a capital "F" group. It still has a lot of 40 year old adolescents in it. But in the 80s & 90s we had a Republican and Democrat parties that were two different and relatively sane groups. Throw out Trump for a moment. He is an aberration. Suppose Jeb Bush was the nominee. Could you even make a list of meaningful differences between him and Hillary Clinton? Now the Dems & Repubs are practically the same thing from an aspect of governing positions. And this despite all the sniping they do at each other. So now there is a real need for a "third way". Well, staring a political party is hard. It's expensive. It's better to join one that already exists and already has an infrastructure. The Libertarian Party has that. It's been around since 1971 and is only recently beginning to have any electoral success to speak of. So it's only now beginning to become a viable thing. In 2004 there were 1300+ Libertarians in elected office around the country. In 2014 there were 3300+. It was just a party in the literal sense in the 80's and 90's when there was no real need or demand for a 3rd option. Now there IS a need and it's time for it to "grow up" and become what the founder David Nolan envisioned when he was horrified at the machiavellian big governments of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. We don't need to win the Presidency. All we need to move forward is just 5% of the vote and to see at least one or two libertarians win congressional seats. Then maybe a few more and a few more. 10 Libertarian representatives in Congress forms a caucus. That means things they do, positions they take will make news because suddenly there are enough to swing a vote one way or the other. And we need to continue seeing LP candidates get elected at the state level. This is already well underway. Jeb Bush crashed from the Republican Primary faster than you could say "oh, wait, he's gone." Trump is an insane aberration but, in the context of the Republican party's evolution and the rise of the Tea Party, he's not that weird. Cruz, his biggest rival in the end, was kind of worse than Trump. That insane surgeon guy said horrible crap as well. Kasich was not terrible I guess, but I have to wonder how much of that came from standing next to stupid. Rubio was emptier than Eastwood's chair. All this to say that, unfortunately, Trump is not a tumor unfortunately growing on the side of the Republican Party structure. He's a direct consequence of their overarching strategy, and depends directly on the core Republican base that the party has been cultivating for over 40 years. It's going to be the Democrats. The Republicans screwed themselves years ago aligning with the family values folk and it's biting them in the ass hard. A lot of businesses are going to support democrats, and a lot already do, because they'll act in their interests without pissing off the growing swathes of people. So we'll see more democrats like Cory Booker(who had Ivanka Trump and her husband run a fundraiser for him) while the last of the Bernie Sanders die out. If it's the Democrats, I'd guess that a Party to the left of the Democrats would have to rise out of nowhere. I'm curious to see what a party to the left of the Democrats with a chance of winning elections would look like.

Is everyone missing how Trump takes every opportunity to say revolting xenophobic, extremist crap? Unless a video comes out of Clinton clubbing baby seals while screaming "I love gun control" at the top of her lungs and stealing food directly from the mouths of starving babies, Trump isn't going to win in November. The Republican Party drove itself into a horrible corner, that depends on the votes of the aging white men demographic to win anything. They'll have to do a complete about-face if they want to stay relevant in the future. If the election goes as badly for Trump as it currently seems like, perhaps Republicans will get a grip and start doing something to change their insane outlook. Or perhaps they'll double down on the crazy again. If they do, FSM help America. Perhaps if the Republican party collapses, a non insane conservative party option will appear to take its place, somehow. After seeing that Samantha Bee video on the Libertarian convention, I don't think the Libertarians will be that option. The US has a two party system by design, by the way. As long as you don't move away from first-past-the-post (impossible, I think), voting for a third party will always be a waste.

I don't know whether he believes it or not, but I do think that, up to a certain point it doesn't matter. His xenophobic speech is still inciting hatred and extremism right here and now, indelibly associating the Republican base with it. Additionally, if the snowball happens to have its day in hell and Trump ends up winning, it will be seen by many racists and xenophobes as open confirmation that their views are accepted in the US, at large. Given the relationship Americans have with violence in general and guns in particular, I can't help but see that as a potent recipe for disaster.

Of course Clinton is a good choice? She has the support of the majority of moderate Americans so she doesnt want to build a wall or deport 11 million people so straight away she will reduce this fear the the world has what Trump can do She wants to continue the Obama legacy and the majority of Americans support this, there is nothing radical or extreme about her policies so we shouldn't see too much of an impact to the world Why dont you think she is a good chocie ? That's just it. She is a choice. That she seems like a good choice is more of a lowering of standards on the Republican side. From my view Democrats are standard, corrupt politicians under the thumb of big money and Obama is no different. Republicans have become something a lot more pernicious and dangerous than that, and Democrats just get a pass for their direct competition being an utter crapshow. The Republican Party becoming an unmitigated disaster means that Democrats win by default, but it's a win that tastes like old socks and broken dreams.

I might be called many things and I hope "consistent" is one of them! I'm guessing you dating profile just states you love dogs and individual rights. It feels weird sometimes, having been on the forums for so long. You kind of count as a guy I know even if we don't really know each other.

I don't think Clinton is a good choice. I simply think Trump is bad enough not be a choice at all. I know GD isn't a Trump supporter. I think he has always (=since he joined the forums) been a libertarian.

Hillary is NOT better than Trump. It's just a different variety of bad. While better is perhaps an inadequate word to compare Clinton to Trump, she is definitely less worse than Trump. The whole fascist, xenophobic, incompetent deal with Trump, is a different kind of bad compared to other politicians on the current American political stage. Clinton seems to me very much like a generic American politician, not all that different from most past American political leaders. Terrible, but par for the course. Trump on the other hand is a different kind of monster, begat from the Republicans' appalling political strategies since Nixon and the American "fast food" news media, together with the economic and political dissatisfaction of the lower classes. That the nominally left leaning politicians in first world countries are leaving the lower classes ripe for the picking of the extreme right is the true problem going on here. In that sense Trump is simply a ghastly and frightening symptom of a much larger issue.

Another thread getting too long. Continue here.

Do you have even more faith in humanity that you can lose? This the thread where you can continue that endeavor.

Continued here.

The other thread was getting too long so this is now the thread where you come to lose faith in humanity.

One time in Blood and Wine I get off Roach to go talk to some guy, and while we're speaking in the background the horse can be seen with one bent leg resting on a table, like it's chilling and having a drink.

I just backed it with 25€, thanks to you.

I haven't read Dark Tower, but the Hearts of Stone plot seemed like a take on Faust, to me.

No, Gwent is Geralt's "unusual request" to the brothel's owner. I think Geralt might have a gambling problem. Well, my Geralt does anyway.

There's a prostitute in Blood & Wine that complains about clients being weird and wanting to roleplay witchers. Apparently, after the act, the clients usually ask for a card.

Both, I guess. While my questions are very much from a noob point of view, they are also informed by my experience as a PC gamer. That allows me to ask questions that your average new player wouldn't ask. While it seems to me like the tutorial is more geared towards people already familiar with Pathfinder, it's not completely undecipherable to people already familiar with games. If, for example, my wholly non gamer wife happened to pick up Pathfinder Adventures, her reaction would probably be to not even finish the tutorial. The use of game specific terminology in the tutorial without much clarification is discouraging to new players and seems like something that should be corrected. I'd say a glossary, tooltips or both might go a long way towards making things a bit more user friendly.

I have just played through the tutorial scenario and, while fun, everything seemed slightly unfathomable. Pathfinder's lingo isn't immediately clear (burying your ally is a good thing?), and while I finished the tutorial I'm still not sure about how the game works. From what I figured out the goal is to find and defeat a boss card which is hidden in one of several locations, although it can move between them. Each location has a single henchman card which you have to defeat in order to make that location inaccessible to the boss. Once you confine the boss to a single location and defeat it there, you win the game. This seems a bit too simple to me, though. In order to do all this you control a few characters (two or more?) which each have deck cards which represent things like equipment, powers, or allies. Characters also possess not-card abilities which you can use whenever you want? I'm not sure about this. I'm also not clear on whether these characters level up, or how their abilities are defined. Can you create characters from the start or are they always unlockables or purchaseables? I also don't know whether locations are more or less generic, or whether they follow some kind of specific builds. Are certain characters better prepared to tackle certain locations? Are there support characters which shouldn't tackle locations alone? Does anything happen to a location if you go for too many turns without interacting with it? Is there a disadvantage to tackling locations one at a time with your whole party?

I have just installed this on my tablet and I thought there might as well be a thread that collects people's thoughts on the game. I haven't done anything with it yet, other than navigating the settings and the store. I'm currently staring at the first welcome message in the tutorial. Everything seems to be very responsive and quick. I'm on a Mipad, a 7,9" Chinese tablet with a Tegra K1. The music is great, and the art style is very nice too. I've never ever interacted with anything Pathfinder related, so that's where I'm coming from. From what I've read from other people online this means I may have trouble understanding some things in the tutorial. Let's see what happens. Feel free to post your impressions here as well, of course.

A chinese Mipad.

Meganecromancy cast on thread! I'll be moving next week so I took the opportunity to take an updated picture of a few games in my collection. Bask in its puny glory.

Timely thread. I currently live in Portugal, as I have for the past 17 years but, I have trying, for the past 6 months, to get a job in Sweden. In fact, I'll be in Sweden next week to meet with a prospective employer. Things are looking good, and I may move to Gothenburg in March.