Elerond

No we know how it works. We just like to laugh at stuff. From your media I would say that even your "socialist" president candidate don't seem to understand how it works. Or more accurately americans have their own idea of socialism that they fear or want. For socialism manifestations that you can find from other countries, people's understanding seem to be very academic, meaning that they have grasp of principalities and theory how things should work, but actual understanding how those existing socialistic economies work is thing that seems to elude most of the people seem that speak about subject. Although I must say that most of the people that live under socialistic economies have hard time to understand how their economies work. Of course nobody can fault people not understanding how those economies work as they quite cleverly hide and obtuse their systems that keep them running. But anyway I don't think this thread is best place to actually go in detail how for example Nordic socialistic economy systems work and why some of our politician are just idiots (this is quite important part actually when we speak economic systems in specific countries like for example Finland).

I would say that americans don't seem to understand how socialism works. Biggest illusion in socialism is that it would take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't.

Not directly related to presidential election, but it seems that GOP establishment wants to ensure that democrats win senate (Tammy Duckworth is combat veteran who lost both her legs in combat and above tweet is part of NRSC's campaign to support for republican senator Mark Kirk [not so surprisingly tweet was deleted minutes after posting it but too late to prevent any damage that it will do])

Sorry there has been calibration error in our space-time-continuum changer, which prevented bimbos in showers.

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! Not directly related to the US election, but similar sentiments is what keeps most Scandinavians (and the UK) from ever having developed warm feelings for the entire European "Union" concept. Free and open markets, etc. yes. A super national construct telling individual countries how they should run their countries, no. Proud voter of "No!" to the Maastrict treaty in 1992 What does that mean Gorthie? The Maastrict treaty And you say that you are firm believer of EU I kid, but it is treaty that created EU.

They vote option that other party didn't propose regardless of what the proposition was. That is at least the feeling that I get from the news. EDIT: So you could say that difference is that Dems isn't GOP and GOP isn't Dems. There is no consistency no clear agenda, no nothing. They just oppose each other for sake of opposing each other. That isn't democracy really it is just plain stupidity IMO. Of course news don't usually cover the small decision that really control how country works but those big "newsworthy" debates that usually mean quite little in long run. But things like TPP get quite little notice and get bipartisan support. So there is clear consensus which direction US is going and then there is the war between parties for show. But really I can't tell clear difference between Dems and GOP, because I can't find clear consensus what those parties try to accomplish. Their leadership say things but that isn't matched by what their members say and what kind propositions and politics those parties drive. In many cases it seems that Republicans and Democrats from one state are closer to each other in politics than they are their party members from state from other side of US. Often I get feeling that even parties in EU parliament have more consistent view of things than republicans and democrats. So my final answer to this question is

But luckily in democratic systems the purpose isn't to find best person to run the country, but to get people to find consensus which direction country should go (for better or worse don't really matter as long as there is direction).

Victor is my second name and C is my surname (von) Carstein I presume.

This is a pretty common Western misconception, because in Buddhism, gods (devas) are generally acknowledged to exist but not actually worshipped. You can't even get through the Buddha's backstory without bumping into Brahma, the Hindu creator. The crucial point is that gods are seen not as a wholly different class of being, but rather as having a better spot on the wheel of karma (see: death and rebirth) despite not having escaped it. Of course, Buddhists of many schools do pray to the Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and Arhats more-or-less as if they were gods, so this is all a bit esoteric. In Chinese and Japanese Buddhism, the difference gets even more arcane, for complicated syncretic cultural reasons that I won't get into. Suffice it to say that not only does Buddhism have gods, it has lots of gods, who are unusual by Western standards mostly in that they had nothing to do with the world's creation. What's interesting is that this attribute is actually also the most unusual thing about Eora's gods (by Western, post-classical standards); what it shares with Buddhism is not a lack of gods - it's the principle of gods as created beings who are not themselves creators. This isn't a novel idea - to Buddhism or PoE - but most of us are used to the Platonic notion of "god as unmoving mover," so we interpret "created artificially" and "god" as mutually exclusive. It says even more about our own concepts of divinity than it does about the setting's that we imagine Thaos' secret as being such a big deal. A lot of cultures, historical and extent, would see no problems. Within Buddhist religions there are differing stances of Buddhism being nontheistic. Although Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity No God, no Brahma can be found, Creator of Samsara’s round; Empty phenomena roll on, Subject to cause and condition. - Visuddhimagga, XIX. Buddhist devas aren't really gods: "This being so, a deva is not a God in the usual sense, and the word is apt to be misleading through its association with Western theism. If modern man could enter into the spirit of ancient Greek thought and understand the attitude of, say, Socrates towards the Greek gods he would come closer to the Buddhist view of the devas. The likeness is not perfect, for the devas, unlike the Greek deities, are not immortal; but they resemble them in being neither omnipotent nor omniscient. They are not creators of the world, but are themselves subject to the law of causality in much the same way that the Greek gods were subject to ananke, the higher law of necessity. They exhibit many of the weaknesses of human beings, and often less than their wisdom. Their present relatively happy circumstances, as well as such power as they possess, are the result of previous merit acquired as human beings. They are in fact simply beings of another order of existence, in some ways superior to men but in others at a disadvantage. But before going further into their nature it is necessary to distinguish between (1) samutti devas (“by convention”), (2) upapatti devas (“through rebirth”) and (3) visuddhi devas (“by their purity”). The first class are human beings of high worldly status; kings; ministers and the like. The second are beings living in the deva-lokas, or higher spheres, while the third and greatest are human beings who have attained the final degree of self-liberation, and so are known as devas by purification while yet alive. These are the Supreme Buddhas, Silent Buddhas (Pacceka Buddhas) and arahats." Source: http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh180-p.html Same as book form in google books https://books.google.fi/books?id=ECTrBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA361&lpg=PA361&dq=Visuddhimagga,+XIX&source=bl&ots=U4MUx2tQSU&sig=5tCLBBQ2Z3GLV46Gjs8lYyH_9Pw&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit9sze5q_LAhVkDJoKHWvTClMQ6AEISDAI#v=onepage&q=Visuddhimagga%2C%20XIX&f=false

You seem very determined to force these established concepts in to your own imagined version. First you butchered the idea of Atheism, now you're butchering Christianity, "it's not a belief system but a category of multiple belief systems." I don't care to change your mind about anything. By all means, think what you like. There is no singular belief system that falls under term Christianity, there are over 21000 different Christian religions in world and they have quite lot differences between them. And they don't even always agree with core tenets of Christian faith(s). If we look definition of atheism from other sources we find that people use definitions like this "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities"

You are wrong according to Atheists.org: https://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism So I repeat: Christianity is a belief system; Atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is term that is used to categorize people don't believe in god/gods or in other words people that lack of belief in gods. But that don't mean that those people that don't have belief systems or life philosophies that guide them. So atheism and Christianity as terms aren't comparable as they describe absolute different things. And if we are accurate then Christianity isn't actually belief system but category term for multiple belief systems that are based at least somewhat in same source materials.

Christianity is a belief system, Atheism is a lack of belief. No atheism is term that is used about people that don't believe in god or gods. So if I say that term ahinduim means lack of belief in Hindu gods, then all people that said term applies will become lazy because of their lack of belief in certain thing.

"It's a cute safety net, and an elaborate way to sell "laziness" under the guise of "lack of belief."" So Christians are lazy because they don't believe in Hindu gods (in other words they have lack of belief in Hindu gods)?

Just as I suspected, thank you very much.......... I have had extensive encounters with atheists and the way last act of the game unfolded, it was screaming write in my face what you just confirmed....... But in PoE's world western Atheist can't exist, because it is know that souls exist and samsara cycle exist and karma like rules that determine souls next body exists. So in PoE's world Buddhist beliefs from our world are reality. So it is quite clear that your extensive encounters with atheists have not taught you anything about atheism at least not its most known form in Earth. One radical aspect was put forth rest was ignored.......just trying to get the mind into the door without confusing it, thats what they called it. Bible tells us how there were things that were created by men but were worshiped as gods and how God disliked Israels who also worshiped those gods made by men. Which is why there are commandments like this You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make idols. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. Man made gods in PoE are just clear example of vanity and sinful nature of men. They are product of people that couldn't live without proof about God(s) so they made ones themselves. It is very biblical story.

What radical ideas PoE is pushing to its audience?

Just as I suspected, thank you very much.......... I have had extensive encounters with atheists and the way last act of the game unfolded, it was screaming write in my face what you just confirmed....... But in PoE's world western Atheist can't exist, because it is know that souls exist and samsara cycle exist and karma like rules that determine souls next body exists. So in PoE's world Buddhist beliefs from our world are reality. So it is quite clear that your extensive encounters with atheists have not taught you anything about atheism at least not its most known form in Earth.

Most of Buddhist religions/philosophies believe in existence of souls but not existence of god(s). In their belief there is no divine entity nor there ever has been one. There is just samsara (continual repetitive cycle of birth and death) and karma which is force (like gravity) that decides next body that soul will inhabit according to certain rules. So to me PoE is seem closest to be Buddhist propaganda instead of Atheist.

How to be successful in election, I don't know but it probably helps if you have more air time in TV than all other candidates combined.

Here is an example scenario why PoE's sequel could be postponed 1. PoE has not sold enough copies that Obsidian could put whole studio to make the sequel without outside funding and getting such funding isn't that easy. 2. Because they of first point they need to seek some other project(s) that will bring cash to the studio so that they can pay for their employees. 3. Those projects that they need to take to get money to run the studio may require all their talent to work on them. 4. Which leads to situation where they need to postpone PoE's sequel to somewhere in future where they have time and resources to do it. Obsidian is currently developing Armored Warfare, which is a Tank MMO. For why?, my guess is that it pays bills and it isn't something that Obsidian as company finds objects from doing. As backer I would say that Obsidian is free to do what they want after they have delivered their promises to me. Of course it would be sad it they will not make more games like PoE.

There is no need to worry about rudeness in these conversations. So feel free to express your thoughts. EDIT: removed unnecessary things to make this page more readable.

California has big impact in elections, especially in presidential elections, where they count 10% of electoral votes. Press has habit to dismiss California because it is consistent blue state as last time California give its votes to republican was in 1988 when they supported Bush. Texas is also big state that gets only little attention as they consistent red state. So in it is just assumed that California backs democratic candidate and Texas republican candidate, and other party candidates don't often really put effort in trying to fight against windmills, but if that would not be the case then those states would have quite significant impact on predicted results. In short California don't seem to have impact in election because republicans go in election with mindset that they lost already in California.

I can't say as I object whole delegate system so my view about its particulars especially in this kind election is very biased. But in other hand it is system used by party that those people in that thread seem to support so my sympathy towards them is somewhat limited.

Howard Dean (ex governor of Vermont) is superdelegate (meaning that he has one delegate vote in democratic national convention where 130k people that voted in democratic primary in Vermont are represented by 16 delegates) for Vermont, so he is member of DNC establishment and his vote counts much more than your typical democrat. I didnt know what a super delegate meant, thanks for explaining But does it change my point? Hilary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nomination....its basically inevitable Millions of Americans feel she is right person to be the next president. Howard Dean feels the same way, why should he vote for Sanders? 86% of people of Vermont voted Sanders so they would like to see that Dean would factor in will of people of Vermont when he cast his vote and people in that twitter thread aren't that pleased of his answer that he don't represent people and will vote according to his own views.

Howard Dean (ex governor of Vermont) is superdelegate (meaning that he has one delegate vote in democratic national convention where 130k people that voted in democratic primary in Vermont are represented by 16 delegates) for Vermont, so he is member of DNC establishment and his vote counts much more than your typical democrat.

Sanders keeps raising millions — and spending them, a potential problem for Clinton "Sen. Bernie Sanders’s path to the Democratic nomination may be narrowing, but his record fundraising shows no sign of slowing down, ensuring that the long-shot rival to Hillary Clinton can remain in the race for months to come. Sanders’s unique success at attracting political money, combined with his powerful appeal to young voters, means that he will keep raising and spending millions of dollars across the country — forcing Clinton to spend, too, and potentially allowing him to score enough victories to drag out the nominating contest and delay what is widely seen as Clinton’s inevitable pivot to the general election."