Longknife

It's so beautiful.

You guys are kind of missing my point.

SPEAKING OF RUSSIA... Putin is fascinating to me. Every time I see the guy, I see a man that fancies himself James Bond, and longs for the olden KGB days so he can be a super suave spy like in the movies. I consider him a dangerous man, because while he's certainly proven intelligence, his goals often seem childish, and likewise if you bother looking up interviews or questions where reporters toss difficult questions at him, his go-to response is typically to speak to that person as if they're an idiot for asking that question without even bothering to explain why; he bullies them into backing down. Whenever I befriend a Russian here in Germany, I always ask them about politics. Why? Because very few russians seemingly follow politics, while Putin has very high favorability ratings. The vast majority tell me they don't care about politics or "it's all rigged anyways." The minority immediately understand my concerns, agree, and say Putin isn't ideal. I ask them why on earth they'd support him without question then, and the answer is always the same. "Because Putin is the only alternative to the oligarchs, and no matter how problematic Putin may be, nothing is worse than the oligarchs. He is infinitely superior." This always has me wondering what exactly kind of hell the Russians have gone through with said oligarchs, and unfortunately it's not really something they can explain to me since it was an experience. I now sit here realizing that come November, should Trump win, all my German friends are gonna invite me out to dinner and ask for a run-down of the election. They'll want me to explain politics to them and how on earth so many people could vote for a man like Donald Trump, and I know what my answer will be. "Because Trump is the only alternative to the oligarchs, and no matter how problematic Trump may be, nothing is worse than the oligarchs. He is infinitely superior."

The main compromise is that while I'm sure Stein and Johnson have their own sets of flaws, they're far too small to be as criminal as Hillary and it would truly take some effort to be as "special" as Trump, not to mention that if a third party were to somehow pull even 20% of the vote, it might encourage people to give new parties a shot in future elections, which is clearly needed, given the DNC corruption. Anybody that is against vaccines is absolutely incompetent to lead country. It is flaw that either Trump or Clinton don't come even close to. I don't know if I would be so quick to discredit someone's entire record due to one quirk. Even so, I'd still argue that Stein would be hard-pressed to ban vaccines in the USA, whereas Hillary installing TPP for example, she has the backing of every lobbyist in the country. Pick your poison wisely, and I would argue that we have an antidote for the ones Johnson and Stein may carry.

The main compromise is that while I'm sure Stein and Johnson have their own sets of flaws, they're far too small to be as criminal as Hillary and it would truly take some effort to be as "special" as Trump, not to mention that if a third party were to somehow pull even 20% of the vote, it might encourage people to give new parties a shot in future elections, which is clearly needed, given the DNC corruption.

You're right, but you're also right it's quid pro quo in a way with all the different ways you can approach. A part of me is stubborn and doesn't want to have to "seduce" people into listening, and it bothers me that people can't just acknowledge solid points for being solid points. Undoubtedly though, what you suggest would work, as I recall a study that found when you call people out on being wrong about something, human nature makes it so people have a tendency to double down on their stance rather than concede. Hell, you could call someone out for saying the sky is green, and they'd likely double down instead of saying they were wrong. I mean in a way, even my post above showcases this in that it's more "let me at least explain the method to my madness" rather than me admitting wrongdoing. Sure, I could be more polite or soft about how I voice my opinions, but I guess in the end I do have my reasonings for doing things the way I do, and I guess I have to realize that being upset if people get annoyed with me about it is a sort of "having my cake and eating it too." Yes, it's upsetting to feel unwelcome, but I suppose I should remember that I did choose to condone myself in this way and quite frankly...? I can't say for certain, but I get the sense you all would be rather shocked if you spoke with me face to face. It seems to me I give the impression I'm this abrasive, pushy, stubborn ass that only cares about results. The reality is much of the reason I am this way online is because if you are going to upset someone and call them out on something, online is probably the kindest, most inoffensive way you can do it; online is my place to call people out on things I normally wouldn't because I can't stand upsetting people. Really the only "annoyance" that remains? Every so often I get a "shadow" in the form of a member of a community that just does not like me, and decides to go on a crusade every time I post and to immediately start something. Understandably that's frustrating, because all it takes is 1-2 of those and it amplifies my issues, because now suddenly I can't post anywhere without a quarrel of some kind. Still, choosing to engage with them is still my decision at the end of the day, because once again, I would rather repeat myself and make it clear that person fails to respond to points instead of just ignoring them. Anyways, I do appreciate the input.

Putin probably isn't even responsible for the hacks and leaks, yet he's probably watching the election all like: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoOsjP_UkAAxeue.jpg:large

Full Bernie Speech here, and help me out guys. At the very end, something is whispered to him about the nomination. "They don't know your name has been put in the nomination, that's the concern," "they don't know IF your name has been put in the nomination..." What exactly was said? What do you guys hear?

The public's being very clear about what they want. Bernie got overwhelming support his entire speech. The moment he endorses Hillary, they turn on him. They're currently just chanting "We want Bernie." In the end I think it doesn't much matter what Bernie wants now or what he's doing since I don't see how on earth Bernie could possibly be picked now. All the same, super curious what exactly his angle is with endorsing Hillary.

Great post! I'm glad you asked! For the moment Guard Dog I have to say I'm not certain and I will have to look into it, but I admire the fact that you've brought this important matter to my attention. EDIT: Bernie is currently speaking. I wonder what his angle is given he's not condemned Clinton, nor does he seem to plan to do so. He did say however that allegedly, by the next Presidential election, the Super delegates are expected to be reduced from ~700 to ~200. EDIT 2: He spoke against the TPP just now even though Hillary is in favor of it. Now I'm confused. wat goin on

Guccifer (original) who hacked Hillary's emails was Romanian, Guccifer 2.0 is ??? though he claims not to be russian. They're separate people. Sweden and Finland have been 2 years from joining NATO since 1989. And Sweden is not even slightly neutral already, NATO membership would just formalise things. The big eastwards push was meant to be Georgia and Ukraine, and they both now have active territorial disputes. Yeah it's odd, I've seen conflicting statements on if they're the same. Currently I saw statements they are, but I distinctly recall past ones they aren't. And if I'm frank? Hackers kinda love attention. Of course he took credit. For me though, I really don't see what it matters who leaked these. What matters is if the leaks can be proven false, and given that their chosen narrative is "Putin did this," they're not exactly denying it.

I think you need to think about the way you post. For example, I agreed with pretty much all of your criticisms about Fallout 4. But when the game came out, you took over the thread we had here about the game. You posted these long essays about all the things Bethesda did wrong. Given that the game had just come out, many of us were making our way through the beginning and still trying to form our own opinions. You kind of drowned out all other discussions, and you were repeating yourself regularly. When I said something about it, you snapped at me. We all repeat stuff here, in fact a lot of threads are cyclical, but if you take a moment to pause and reflect on whether you've made your point already, it will save you a good deal of sanity. Your criticisms may be spot on, but that doesn't mean they need to dominate every thread. Give people space to form their own opinions, try not to repeat yourself too often, and don't forget this is supposed to be fun. I would hope we all come here to relax and enjoy pleasant discussions on games and other interests. It's not a competition and no one is going to win the forum someday. First thing I wanna clarify: I am well aware that people read my statements online as hostile. Take my word for it that I never feel openly angry or hostile or upset or wtf ever when posting. The most I get is perplexed fascination with watching things unfold in ways I can't understand. Having said that, sorry if I "snapped at you," I can assure you I didn't attend it to be hostile. For me, the most I ever want to do is avoid beating around the bush or avoid brushing off good points, so for example if someone were to claim something akin to "we need more time before we should jump to conclusions about the overall quality," I consider that beating around the bush because that in and of itself is a non-argument. If evidence thusfar on a topic suggests something (for example that FO4 is bad), then "we should wait to see if it's just a bad first impression" is a non-argument that I would "snap" at. (and no not accusing you of doing this, giving an example for the sake of explaining myself) And if I feel I'Ve got a good point that's ignored? Yes, I'll bring it back up and if an individual in particular seems to be purposefully avoiding acknowledgement cause it's a hard pill to swallow, I will point it out to them again. I'm well aware I'm bold and brash, but for what it's worth, I cannot recall a conversation online where I ever felt angry, or any other strong emotion for that matter, so if you can take my word for it, there it is. Having said that, I find the idea of dominating a thread to be very odd. Everyone is free to skip over my posts. That's exactly why you never see me call out people that say "tl;dr" or complain about the size. By all means, it's not like people are required to read what I say, and if they don't like what I say, I fully welcome them not to. I want to voice my opinion on matters just like everyone else. If I voice my opinion more frequently or with more written backing it up, I don't see how this should discourage anyone else from harboring their own opinions unless they're in direct conflict, in which case....well wtf, that's my point. Why should people be upset if it comes down to "oh no, a person on the internet disagrees with me and he's making good points!" If someone makes a good point, cool, accept it. If it's difficult to accept, why? That's my focus, that's my worry. On the subject of the gaming industry in particular, yeah, I am impatient I'll admit, because it itself sees constant drops in quality because while people may eventually realize a game saw a drop in quality, they do so too slow for it to have a meaningful impact on the game as a whole. You named FO4 as an example, I did not buy it. I thought about what was shown at E3, and after maybe a week or two, determined I expected a drop in quality. Great, I didn't purchase, I "voted with my wallet," but many more gave it a shot, and several more will give FO5 a shot simply on the blind hope it'll be good and regardless of it's actual previews, and the cycle is gonna continue. It's very sad to watch, in my opinion, because it feels like a case where consumers constantly convince themselves something won't suck in hopes of filling an entertainment void, and then it does and what we lost was the potential for something better, had consumers only been more critical. I explain all of that moreso just to give you an idea why I have that beef, though that does not change that okay, I may be bound to come across as abrasive. I suppose I should accept that as a side effect, since honestly I do not feel a desire to change what I care about in such discussions. And nah, it's not about winning. I would happily concede if and when I'm wrong. For me, as I said, it's more about how with the topic of gaming in particular, this image sums up how I often view the gaming community as a collective, and what saddens me is less "no my hobby is dying" and more that this pattern can continue in a number of ways and a number of industries to the detriment of the average joe. Anyways, sorry for talking your ear off, it's what I do. If anyone cares (lolno), I might reveal what community this is exactly once I get confirmation it really is a 0 to 100 permaban for the conversation I suspect, simply because I think the community may say a little something about why I feel less guilt with this one in particular. Not really in a rush to get an answer from their mod staff yet, who have until now ignored my message, simply because the current election news is clearly more interesting and important.

“When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness, and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!” "I once got so drunk I woke up in a bathtub next to a girl I had Microeconomics with. She looked so beautiful with her smeared makeup and the smell of vodka and pineapple was pleasant. I have never felt such love for anyone since." -KP I don't like quotes because the ones I usually post are obscene. Yes, in the sense that it's even more blatant about how corrupt they are. At least try to not look like a piece of **** and all that. Exactly, it's common ****ing courtesy to at least pretend you aren't corrupt. And really, the issue is this: I have long assumed that if the Democratic primary was rigged, they plan to rig the general election as well, right? After all, if these are imaginary voters for Clinton, then it's important to understand they're imaginary. If they expect imaginary voters in the Democratic primary to spark actual real voters in the general election, they're insane. They're believing their own lie, more or less. So the logical conclusion is one must rig the general as well. But now people are super alert, now people are highly suspicious. Good luck doing so when the public are on their toes. Rigging a democratic primary and rigging a general election are not the same thing. Amongst democrats the bias is not expected, but amongst a general election, of course there's watch dogs from both sides. While I've seen it suggested that for example the Republicans may have the same big money donors backing them, they still have an interest to save face in public and to advance their own personal positions by being the guy that spoke out against Clinton. Make enough noise? You become the guy that gets the bribe money, not Clinton. The purpose to all of the overwhelming evidence is that Clinton simply isn't electable. There is currently so much political gain in simply opposing her, to the point someone is bound to do it. FOX News is already doing it, I promise you Republicans in Congress will do it, and Wikileaks still has information they haven't leaked yet. While we all suspected corruption, this level of transparency with the corruption is something else, because it just absolutely diminishes her electability, and even if they were to forge millions of votes for the general election, they're kidding themselves if they think there would not be public outrage. People have already been boo'ed during their speeches at the DNC, and it's barely started.

Two things: 1) Why you guys are more concerned about if Russia is behind the leaks amidst evidence of the DNC promising federal positions to top level donors is beyond me. You guys are legit prioritizing speculation over something we have evidence for. What's more...? If Hitler pointed out "oh btw Richard Nixon is a crook," that does not change that Nixon is a crook. Russia has a direct interest in highlight that American politics are rigged for a number of reasons, and doing so =/= "we really want Trump as President so we can nuke you" or whatever wild speculation people may have. What's more...? Guccifer2.0 (the Romanian hacker) took credit for it all on his twitter, though again I dunno why people care about the source so much amidst the implications of the email itself. 2) To say Donna Brazile is a great choice is blatantly missing the issue. CNN was implicated in the emails, as was Donna Brazile herself. Lemme get this straight: the emails suggest that CNN, MSNBC, TIME magazine and a couple select others are all taking orders from the DNC, the DNC is heavily favoring Hillary Clinton in a way it promises not to be, and then come news of the emails, DWS joins Hillary Clinton's campaign, Brazile moves from CNN and her experience with Al Gore - Clinton's former Vice - to become the new DNC chairwoman, and this is ok...? No, this is exactly what the problem is.

What a string of disasters At least the little one has a couple decades before she tries to kill us all.

Yeah, they must be 'phobic to criticism' or it might just be you're a total ****. Hey man, trust me, I've given both consideration. Took a step back actually though, read the convo I suspected, and I actually wasn't swearing, let alone any personal insults. Likeiwse, it truly is a no-warnings-your-gone scenario with a community I've been a part of for months, not to mention the same mod that banned me did not reply when I asked why the ban happened, even though I was welcomed to do so and sent the message not 5 minutes after the ban. If you don't like me, that's fine, but when I reviewed that particular one, I actually am puzzled at this point. Lord knows I swear plenty, lord knows I speak my mind. But in that particular scenario, what happened was someone stepped into a conversation and just asked "why do you continue bothering talking to these guys if you yourself say you sense passive aggression," and from there the convo was more or less me and that guy talking; him asking genuine questions, me answering.

Hillary for prison 2016. They are legitimately ****ing crazy if they go through with picking her. It's no longer a question of "can they rig the election in November?" Even if they did, it wouldn't matter, because there's simply too much firepower for the Republicans to use against her. I've also heard that the woman that was to replaced Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (who btw is now on the Clinton Campaign. Good job Hillary) is allegedly already implicated in the emails aswell and set to be replaced. This is turning into a joke. It's like Hillary is a rotting carcass at this point, but everyone from the media to the DNC to many of the richest corporations in America insist on propping her corpse up and insisting "Nah guys don't worry! She's FIIIIIINE!" They are playing a game of chicken with this election, let alone the stability of the United States. I mean this guy says it best. For those unfamiliar, he himself is a well known hacker, and if you were to ask him? This and this. Look at the date of that second one, that's pretty important. Do they REALLY want to take chances that he is bluffing with the initial tweet I linked? At some point, surely....surely these wealthy billionaires and investors have to show the capacity to cut their losses, because at this point, Hillary is a liability. Supporting her any further runs a very high risk of exposing corruption even further in great, fine detail, because we have every reason to believe these leaks are just gonna continue, and if this pattern continues, no, they do not get less damning, they get more damning.

Guys, this is getting EXTREMELY serious. Wikileaks just did another leak, and there were plans to reward top donors with federal positions, which has the potential to violate not one, but two seperate federal laws. I'm even seeing the resurfacing of a story about an alleged assassination conspiracy involving the death of a DNC staff; this is a conspiracy that spawned like a week ago, I only mention it to say the fact that people are talking about it again speaks volumes of how much people's faith in the DNC and the Clinton campaign has absolutely tanked. The DNC rally is today. The DNC rally is today and not only is there crystal clear evidence of some INSANELY questionable tactics with decent odds of being downright illegal, but now even conspiracy theories about potential assassinations are being deemed worth of review. Top it all off, protests have been going on in Philedelphia for ~4 hours now. How the HELL does the DNC honestly expect to elect her? Hell, even if they did (by fixing the damned election, at this rate), the federal positions scandal has potential to haunt her well into her presidency; hell no the Republicans would not be silent about that and hell no the Democrats would not be upset with the Republicans for doing so. How on earth is anyone supposed to follow a leader that's involved in shady business constantly? She is no longer electable, and while I fully expect rigged elections, she's no longer electable in the sense she gives the Republicans faaaaaaaaar too much firepower to truly be profitable for any parties involved with this. Something is going to happen, it'll be interesting to see what.

Speaking as a German-American, I feel Germany severely overestimates the extent of their immigrants.

Apparently Bernie has expressed no desire to fight Hillary over this crap. I'm sad now.

I'm sure Debbie Wasserman-Schultz will feel really remorseful about what she did while floating down onto the roof of her new mansion with the aid of her golden parachute.

This is actually pretty frightening in a way, because I know two Albanians in Munich (luckily not listed). A reminder for why racism is so disgusting, when people you can "vouche for" as being wonderful people (yeah no one needs to be vouched for, you get what I mean) could just be shot dead indiscriminately due to race, with complete disregard for who they were or what they were like.

Got banned from my third game community for criticizing the game. Look, I'm fully willing to admit that things get heated when people develop personal ****ing grudges towards you when you criticize their game, and I'll fully admit I'm not the most polite person the fourteenth time I have the same brigade of rabid fans following me around shouting down my criticism. Having said that, I do find it REAL ****ing convenient it's always the minority opinion and the critic that is expected to uphold the "be polite" rules, the very people I was speaking with who equally lost their cool do not seem to be hit with any such slap on the wrist, and that two of these three communities have lept past any warning system, instead immediately springing to permanent bans. Yes, I get it. You can absolutely argue I am the "heart of darkness" in the quarrel, but I would be quick to argue that anyone is going to become a heart of darkness if they cannot walk two feet without people with personal vendettas arriving to shout you down. Should I really be punished for the heat of things while those that stood opposed with me walk free...? If you read this and think "maybe it's time to question if you aren't the problem," well quite frankly it's difficult to believe that when people guilty of the EXACT same degree of hostility (which in and of itself seems like a debateable reason when referring to regular members rather than new accounts that haven't a calm post to their name) are completely unscathed by any moderation action. Yes, it's a game forum. Who cares, right? Right. I'm not bothered by this because boohoo cross another forum of the list of places to drop by. I'm bothered by it cause seeing the amount of people in society that are absolutely phobic of criticism is absolutely alarming to me. What's more, the first time I could easily believe someone genuinely felt I was the guilty party. And while I may not sound it, yes, I am very self-critical, so even though I can sit here with my gut saying "this is BS," I will absolutely spend a long time wondering if I truly am the problem.

What did he do?

Anyone know how and when you can find names of victims in stories like this? Got old friends in Munich.