Gromnir

our issues with the article were starting early as the author's rosey-hued recollection o' bg1 baffled us. the bg 1 companions were little more than a collection o' catchphrases. am thinking the identification o' the original bg game as the most well liked is questionable, but even if such were true, we would not hold up the companions as being a noteworthy positive. the admission larian were following d&d rules regarding movement, after spending a page grumbling 'bout bg3 movement, were also curious from a guy who were touting decades o' d&d experience. however, the githyanki comment is, if true, valid. why have a githyanki companion? or rather, why have all the companions open hostile. am thinking it is likely each companion introduced early in the game may have a legit reason for being hostile or general unpleasant. get three companions early and they is all backstabbing grumble monkeys? didn't need make the companion a githyanki, and even if for the story larian were trying to tell they genuine wanted a githyanki companion, that don't mean all the early companions need be so unlikable... though have not played bg2 ea so am taking the author's concerns as legit. didn't need be a githyanki, or rather, didn't need all have the same antisocial issues as the githyanki unless the authors wanted such. will hold off judgement 'bout the game, but based on reviews so far the writing is uninspired and as much as many folks were approving o' bg3's low-level d&d and a slower progression than similar d&d pc games o' the past couple decades, a few o' the combat related concerns is utter predictable. unlike obsidian's pillars games, which attempted to make even low level combat compelling with multiple and useful abilities accessible from the start o' the game for every class and character build, d&d combat is still, after all these decades, notoriously punishing and unsatisfying at low levels. combine worst aspects o' bg1 and toee combat? non magic wielders is relegated to their auto-attack and if there is more than three enemies in a turn-based combat encounter, it can feel soul numbing slow. am also genuine baffled how a party o' n00b adventurers is taking on multiple intellect devourers, but such could be explained with narrative... devourers is injured or recent concussed or... dunno. will wait a bit. HA! Good Fun!

it is reassuring that the pentagon, unlike the wh, is taking serious and following cdc guidelines. sure, the vice commandant likely got covid-19 from the wh, as he attended a gold star event at the wh a day after the now infamous rose garden event. that said, charles wray and all the other military brass now in quarantine were wearing masks when they were forced to be in close contact with each other. furthermore, as soon as pentagon folks became aware o' a positive test by the coast guard vice commandant, the brass immediate had anybody who were in close contact with wray quarantine according to cdc guidelines. not being afraid o' covid is much different from being an idiot about the dangers o' covid. HA! Good Fun!

hour long, but if you still have a covid-19 question, you should find an answer... even if you do not necessarily like the answer. am not providing a comprehensive rundown o' topics, but video addresses vaccines (including how safety is established) and timelines for an anticipated return to something approaching normalcy as well as what is meant by aerosolization, rates o' infection which lead to asymptomatic and hospitalizations, "second wave" nomenclature, models projecting death for the winter, how to approach holiday travel, and the disproportionate impact o' covid-19 on minority communities.

so, no proof? HA! Good Fun!

proof. you made this claim previous. any reputable study we has seen shows a more direct link between lack of education and belief in conspiracy theories. iq is not specific addressed most times as iq tests themselves is less objective than one would hope for when conducting these kinda studies. education is concrete and objective. "what is the highest level of education you attained?" is no judgement involved. iq test score is objective proving how you scored on an iq test as 'posed to how intelligent a person is. iq tends to be lower for conspiracy theory believers, but is a fail to draw any such conclusions 'bout intelligence and conspiracy theory belief in part 'cause iq tests is themselves suspect. bs receptivity is higher 'mongst believers in conspiracy theories with diminished iq being identified as a factor, but again, lack o' education AND being a loser (denotative and not connotative) is the more relevant indicators. if you feel like you personal have gotten the fuzzy end o' the lollipop and you lack education, then your bs receptivity goes up predictable. more unfairness you believe you suffered and less education received results in increased bs receptivity. schizotypy is presenting the best correlative juxtaposition or predictor o' a belief in conspiracy theory. not clinical schizophrenic, but possessing psychological characteristics which is common in a schizophrenia diagnosis is what is schizotypy. schizophrenics and individuals with schizotypy tend to score poor on iq tests, but again, a typical iq test is a transparent flawed way to assess a person with attention span limitations and disorganized cognition. try and refrain from seeing the profound in unsupported claims regarding high intelligence and a belief in conspiracy theory. such claims is not gonna help your position and may hurt. bs receptivity/schizotypy... not need look very far to find obsidian board examples. HA! Good Fun!

'Don't Be Afraid Of It': Trump Dismisses Virus Threat As He Returns To White House HA! Good Fun!

you were making claims 'bout the effectiveness o' gun laws, and referenced rural districts 'n such. you have referenced current city gun control laws when identifying the ineffectiveness o' strict gun laws. complain how strict local laws don't work but reject evidence they has indeed worked because they are local? how does that square? you got a basic fundamental misunderstanding 'cause all firearm laws pre 1930s were gonna be state or local. there were no real meaningful Court decisions until 1939... save one: presser v. illinois (1886). SCOTUS made clear the 2nd amendment were a prohibition on the national government and not state or local. "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." 2nd amendment honks may claim God is on their side, but the better part o' the entirety o' US history and and all relevant Court decisions until 1939 (and perhaps far more recent as miller serves only to confuse,) is favoring state and local gun control... and such gun control ran the gamut from incidental to draconian. definition matters not save for your arguments regarding strict gun control laws. @Guard Dog am not certain as to causes. urban is more likely to result in homicides and violent crimes as 'posed to rural regardless o' general poverty stats. fact. why? dunno. most homicides is actual crimes o' passion as 'posed to planned, but even gun violence which don't end in death and would appear to be premeditated is having similar skew towards urban. sure, w/i the municipality, poverty appears to be a major contributing factor, but why is so much more likely in urban? am recalling a british paper which found that impulsivity in rats increases once a non-specific population density is reached, with a sharp escalation in the prevalence o' aberrant behaviours once the threshold is exceeded. *shrug* HA! Good Fun!

again, this just isn't true. the thing is, we ain't had draconian gun laws in the US since the mid 20th century. is ironic, but the wild wests stories is mostly fiction because o' draconian gun laws. recall, the ok corral killings resulted from enforcement o' municipal gun laws. old west towns w/o such gun laws ordinarily had gun murder rates many times that o' those which had law and order and gun laws. do a little research on bodie, ca, in the late 1800s and then compare to wichita, abilene or dodge city. as early as 1619 in the colonies, one could receive the death sentence for selling firearms or gunpowder to native americans. concealed carry laws, btw, were the norm rather than an exception going as far back as the founding, and extreme stiff penalties were enforced. were 29 states in 1847, and nineteen had concealed weapons prohibitions or outright prohibitions on pistols. most US gun law restrictions were municipal, but in 1875, wyoming banned possession o' any firearm (pistol or long rifle) within the limits o' any city, town or village. etc. again, until 1934, draconian gun laws were the norm and they were the norm 'cause they worked. those old west towns which is misrepresented in movies provide some o' the best evidence for just how effective were such laws. is worth the effort to do a little self education and compare places like bodie to wichita in the mid/late 19th century. compare homicides as a whole and deaths from firearms in particular. for all the folks who thinks gun possession is some kinda God given right which were codified in the Constitution and is only now under threat by far-left libs is revealing a profound lack o' historical awareness. HA! Good Fun! ps to clarify in case it were missed, we haven't had genuine draconian gun laws in this country in a long time. argue such is a good or bad thing, but is difficult to claim such laws were ineffective when they did exist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say/ https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993698/ where the numbers is not clear is the suggestion the assault weapons ban made Americans safer. too much sketchy info to prove such. in fact, Gromnir has argued numerous times how bans on so-called assault weapons is stoopid 'cause is handguns which cause a disproportionate number o' firearms deaths, with blunt force weapons signifficant oustripping long rifle as cause o' death in US homicides. if goal is to make americans safer, the focus on assault weapons misses the point. wasn't our argument that assault weapons ban made americans safer or reduced gun violence. what it did do were make it less likely for folks to use such weapons in crime. laws regarding machine guns and assault weapons has indeed worked. is proven that with terrible enough punishments, people stop using those kinda weapons to commit crime. the argument that criminals don't care 'bout laws and thus ignore such laws is not supported. create a draconian law which prevents gun ownership would likely save lives. is a pointless discussion however as "strict gun laws" cannot actual exist in this country. HA! Good Fun! ps am suggesting a closer reading o' third link as it shows how following the expiration o' the aw ban, numbers returned and even increased to pre 1990s levels.

yeah, but try and explain causation v. correlation to folks is doomed. is a reason why so many folks is having their minds blown by how similar is 5g and covid-19 infection maps. the assault weapon ban, because o' how severe were the punishments, did indeed lead to a reduction in a certain class o' weapons being used in crime. not even @Guard Dog would deny such. warning: kinda sweary is not wrong 'bout the enhancement o' crimes committed with automatic weapons. make a genuine punishing law which prevented gun ownership o' any kind would not be Constitutional, which is why the whole "strict gun laws" bit is relative nonsense. only in the US would our strict gun laws be considered particular strict. regardless, you are wasting your time trying to explain causation v. correlation. HA! Good Fun! ps however, am gonna observe how poverty is less direct responsible than might be imagined. poor and rural don't have same gun violence numbers. urban environments, even republican urban such as fort worth, tx, has higher gun violence numbers than rural even where poverty numbers is similar. fort worth has higher gun murder numbers than nyc btw.

given how unreliable is the non-lethal options available to the cops, it is impractical to disarm the police. as such, gd should be pushing for the disarming o' the populace if he wishes for cops to be disarmed. eliminate police access to militarized weapons is a bit o' a different issue. oh, and trump is taking dexamethasone.

william barr has chosen to not quarantine in spite of having been in close contact with numerous other folks who has tested positive for covid-19. this choice by the ag is curious 'cause while baatezu is immune to fire and poison, as well as having cold and acid resistance o' 10, they is not having a noteworthy defense to disease. HA! Good Fun!

Chris Wallace urges people ‘wear the damn mask,’ follow the science on coronavirus anybody trying to grasp the current alternate reality which were mentioned earlier in the thread, am gonna recommend reading the comments section following the story. mask wearing advice is hardly news at this point regardless o' the President being hospitalized. nothing new here in the linked article in that sense. what is curious is the reaction o' trump nation, the same folks who thinks trump had a winning debate performance and who believe the white supremacy question were tough/unfair, to a post trump hospitalization plea to put politics aside and don masks where social distancing is impractical. HA! Good Fun!

not failed for us. President being transferred to walter reed.

am annoyed by numerous folks continuing to mislead regarding what a negative test for covid-19 means. covid-19 incubation period is two to fourteen days, although there is a significant drop-off after seven days. five days is typical. therefore, if you were in contact with trump or hicks on thursday, your covid-19 negative results is not genuine showing you managed to avoid infection from those individuals until october 8. that goes for biden too btw. former vp should get tests the next few days before he does anything in-person. wh individuals who had recent contact with trump and hicks continuing to show up and interact with folks sans masks is complete irresponsible and again, doesn't matter if the wh staff tested negative yesterday or today. HA! Good Fun! ps as fauci has observed, there is nothing ordinary 'bout covid-19. a typical covid-19 patient is not all that typical. nevertheless, IF trump follows the typical progression o' a person who has already shown symptoms, then 5-7 days from yesterday is when trump need be particular concerned, 'cause IF a covid-19 patient progresses from mild to severe symptoms that is the typical time frame in which it happens. but again, one o' the things which epidemiologists continue to stress is just how "protean" is covid-19. is not that the disease is changing, though there is some mutation. what fauci meant were how folks same age and with identical comorbidities infected by same exact strain would nevertheless have different reactions to the virus with greater than expected frequency. a typical case is an elusive definition.

can't believe we forgot to mention gender. men is noteworthy more likely to die from covid. but again, asymptomatic is the most common scenario even for old, fat, male, etc. am thinking few o' the people being dismissive o' death rates has had to watch somebody die as they struggle for air. as we noted already, our first thought on hearing the trump news were what a horrible death is possible from a covid infection. wouldn't wish that on anybody. our second thought were, given our recognition o' how terrible is covid deaths (though drug induced comas make less horrible once all hope is lost) the cavalier attitude which the wh took once hope hicks were identified as symptomatic and then covid-19 positive angered us more than a little and we will be wanting an explanation o' such behaviour. recognizing the extreme transmissibility o' covid-19, a relative low mortality rate may still result in a large number o' deaths. willingness to expose others is at best irresponsible. at worst... https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

survival rate is significantly worse for obese folks in their 70s with heart conditions. a number curious overlooked is the folks who get ill enough to require hospitalization, which is closer to 20% last we reviewed, but that were admitted a while ago and before increased testing, so could be lower... but again, whatever is the base rate for all population won't apply to trump as he presents multiple comorbidities. require hospitalization for a respiratory disease is no freaking joke, particular for old, fat and bad ticker. even so, most likely scenario is trump remains asymptomatic. HA! Good Fun!

this doesn't seem plausible, but by the same token, trump claimed he were only tested on thursday immediate before his hannity interview. hope hicks were tested and were known to be positive thursday morning and she were displaying symptoms on wednesday. that timeline is no more plausible than your suggestion. again, the wh were aware hope hicks might be covid-19 positive wednesday afternoon and knew she were positive thursday morning but trump went on with his day as usual and were not personal tested 'til late thursday eve? so, if this is the trump version o' a practical joke that he is gonna play out to its conclusion, at a minimum, everybody exposed to hicks, trump and melania (will no doubt be others) which is pretty much all the most essential persons in the executive branch, assuming they don't test positive, needs at least ten days o' isolation... with +30 days before the election? even if trump stays asymptomatic, which is the statistical most likely scenario... ... gotcha? ps am expecting a creative wh editing o' the timeline o' events which a few o' our more gullible board regulars will accept w/o any question. pps extreme late edit after watching a bit o' fox news. am avoiding a double-post. and speaking o' fake news, over at fox, the folks is suggesting that those wh persons who has tested negative may resume face-to-face meetings immediate. not true. it may take days for a virus load to build enough to show a positive test result. folks such as pompeo and meadows should stay isolated until they has had multiple negative test results for covid, depending on timelines... and again, who is gonna believe wh timelines given what we has been told so far.

wrong question, but understandable. the rnc could choose somebody. period. is something like 100 people on the republican party committee and getting an agreement might be tough, but practical is different from possible. committee doesn't need to use the primary system to replace trump on the ticket. could pick a name out of a hat. literal. no joke. bigger problem is ballots, which has already been printed, sent out, and in some cases returned. most states have voting laws which include time deadlines for printing o' ballots. is also deadlines for when a party may submit a name to individual states so as to appear on a ballot. that date has universal past. in theory, is too late for the republicans to offer a backup candidate in a few states. am suspecting a few states has provisions for backup candidates to have already been identified, but am pretty confidant such ain't true everywhere. very complicated. one thing to keep in mind, an issue often overlooked, is that there is no Constitutional right for Americans to vote for President. am knowing we has mentioned previous, but is doubtful it genuine sank in... and our observation is also why we are concerned 'bout trump and barr hijinks post november 3. based on the Constitution, the President is not elected democratic. Constitution says President is chosen by the electoral college and that states decide how electoral college delegates is chosen. most states make clear that electoral delegates is appointed based on votes by citizens, but is a state-by-state thing. furthermore, and here is the kicker, if a state can't agree 'pon their delegates, there is a process whereby the fed takes over and Congress decides who becomes President. let's all hope the President recovers. our personal first thought were that acute respiratory distress is a horrible condition to suffer. drown on dry land. second thought were all the people exposed to covid-19 unnecessarily 'cause the President went on with his itinerary for a full day, exposing any number o' people after we knew hope hicks had tested positive... and we only knew 'bout hope hicks 'cause o' the fake news media. is a whole 'lotta folks unnecessarily exposed and who should be entering quarantine... yesterday.

le sigh again, the white supremacy question were not meant to appease pundits or change hearts and minds. undecideds and the demographics which trump was strong in 2016, but has lost ground considerable particular o' late (women and the elderly) were given a chance to see trump reject white supremacists on national tv. were ez. identify how the far left or pundits weren't gonna be budged utter misses the point. multiple posters are strawmanning this one to death. and identify why 2016 voters got suckered in by trump is preaching to the choir but more important ignores how Americans demand more from Presidents as 'posed to less. this is not europe. we don't have a prime minister and a parliament. we got an extreme centrist tradition and a system which promotes moderation 'cause our government can't LEGAL function w/o cooperation from both sides o' the aisle. the reason why trump keeps resorting to unconstitutional is 'cause the system is designed to prevent exact what is happening. working class had not improved under pre-covid trump anymore than were happening in the second half o' obama's term, and his handling o' the pandemic made situation far worse for folks w/o a college degree. even before the pandemic, the rate o' farmer bankruptcies were at highs not seen in many decades and suicides by farmers were also nearing post ww2 highs. is not just that what were bad under obama were continuing to be bad. the trade war with china were killing american farmers and trump policies were making situation worse save for the largest corporate farms. Americans has always expected more from Presidents and the ideology nonsense has never been convincing on this side of the pond. nevertheless, trump has sold the his base on the existential threat o' democrats and blm and muslims and immigrants. of course folks more familiar with european politics ain't shocked, but the US has been different for a long time... intentional so. our extreme right and extreme left has, until recent, looked positive centrist by euro standards. our system makes centrist the norm. nevertheless, an unpopular populist ushers in new kinda American politics? we got an unpopular President who is able to get away with almost daily violations o' the Constitution, and is not possible to stop him unless our senate, which is current answerable to a distinct minority o' the population, chooses to say, "no." the senate, btw, is designed to be more remote from the will o' the people with their six-year terms... which is ordinary the case... at least it was until citizens united. centrist. moderation. until trump? HA! Good Fun!

will forgo the obvious tee-ball opportunity with which you present us and instead repost a tribe quote we offered on these boards late last year. "Many Americans who voted for Trump view themselves as belonging to a victimized, disenfranchised class that has finally discovered its champion. For some of them, Trump’s appeal is less what he will accomplish programmatically than whom he will attack personally. Were Trump removed from office by political elites in Washington, DC—even based on clear evidence that he had grossly abused power—some of his supporters would surely view the decision as an illegitimate coup. Indeed, some right-wing leaders have already denounced the campaign to remove Trump as a prelude to civil war. This rhetoric, too, escapes reality and indulges pernicious tendencies toward apocalyptic thinking about the impeachment power." am getting that the shift happened. am recognizing the common factor 'mongst folks vulnerable to such rhetoric as trump offers, which is why we always stress education is the real solution. even so, this doesn't happen in the US. not for a long time. get too remote and just weren't possible to be happening 'cause the President weren't what it is today. americans ordinarily hold the President accountable for that which is beyond the capacity o' the President to control. we, as a nation, unfair hold the President to account. economic changes made by a President rare have immediate impact and the current President is often being blamed for mistakes o' the previous President or Congress. etc. repeating... again. am getting how there is a disaffected portion o' the population which is vulnerable to conspiracy theories and rhetoric which offers clear villains and ez solutions. however, two party system and senate/house split and a hundred other institutional and cultural differences has meant the US has been less vulnerable to idealogues. the recession hit people harder than employment numbers suggest... 'cause the employment numbers were changed. is a whole lotta folks who never recovered from the recession, and even before 2008, real wages were having been no better than flat for decades. perhaps the current situation were inevitable... just is so improbable trump, a populist who could not manage to win the popular vote, and who has enacted policies which disproportionate hurt his base, should be the President when the system finally lurched backwards and slouched towards bethlehem. it took a unique alchemy o' the electoral college and US system and weird demographic shifts to make 2020 possible. doesn't make sense save for fact it has happened. HA! Good Fun!

again, the party demographic has shifted. is exact our point that normal republicans today is unrecognizable to us older folks... and is the reason why trump won the nomination in 2016. all the 2016 republican Presidential candidates save for trump were, before their immaculate conversion, traditional conservatives. https://www.wsj.com/articles/doctors-once-gop-stalwarts-now-more-likely-to-be-democrats-11570383523 why on earth would working class americans and farmers vote trump given how his policies both economic and in response to covid has disproportionate hurt working class americans and farmers? in 2020 is not 'bout policies or even performance. is all so... european. @BruceVC "Trump has had on several occasions condemned the right wing, people can google this if they dont believe me" you do know what we meant when we identified trump vacillation and equivocation, yes? trump frequent defends white supremacists and claims ignorance o' individuals or groups he has specific spoken 'bout previous, then when epic fallout ensues, a day or two removed, he then offers a kinda/sorta condemnation. surely you gotta see how such equivocation and vacillation provides fodder for those who see trump policies and rhetoric as racial motivated. the question at the debate was easy. the ez answer to the question were not meant to change hearts and minds. the question were to provide undecided voters with an excuse, and trump improbable sabotaged himself. HA! Good Fun!

the bad news is those folks is becoming a minority w/i the party. recall, every 2016 republican party candidate forceful rejected trump's muslim ban. called trump xenophobic and a bigot. where are those republicans in 2020? even rick santorum works very hard to spin every trump blunder as positive as possible. the republicans george h.w. bush or reagan would recognize is in places such as this. most "normal republicans" we recognize are offended by trump. too few. far too few. and for skarp_one, no, there is indeed an easy and correct answer to the white supremacy question. we already noted how the past cannot be erased with a single response. the reason why the question is problematic today is 'cause trump screwed it up so many times in the past. but again, as already stated, the question weren't for the benefit o' those who already made up their mind 'bout trump. for the few undecided voters, reject white supremacy unequivocal woulda' made a difference. those wanting to vote trump policies but offended by trump character coulda' more easily convinced self that trump were not the bigot he appears to be. trump failed, again. he improbable failed again and that comes from a person who assumes trump will fail. easiest question evar. HA! Good Fun!

mayhap 'cause as often as not he vacillates or equivocates when is asked 'bout white supremacy. for fun, do a search on trump being questioned 'bout david duke. don't just read first headline neither. the white supremacy question is not difficult bruce. is not even an aleppo kinda thing where a person perhaps becomes confused in the moment. ... the weird part is that the question from wallace were an uncontested layup opportunity. am suspecting it were not intended to be difficult. wallace gives trump a chance to undermine the left's argument that trump supports white supremacists. sure, just 'cause trump rejected white supremacists during a national debate would not make folks who dislike him forget all his previous equivocation, but for those undecideds, many of whom agree with trump policies but nevertheless fear he is racist, condemning white supremacy public, national and unequivocal woulda' been a boon. on tuesday, trump managed to solidify one portion o' his base. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stand-back-and-stand-by-proud-boys-merchandise-amazon/ call it a win? easiest question ever faced by a Presidential candidate in a debate: are you willing to condemn white supremacists? how is it possible to screw the pooch on that question? HA! Good Fun!

this is in fact an exaggeration. margin were less than 1% in all three states. nevertheless, some kinda planned voter fraud is prohibitive unlikely. almost 1000 examples in 40 years? please. as for accidental error and blunders? sure that is gonna happen. what doesn't help is when it is the President purposeful and unapologetically attempting to handicap the post office in an attempt to make the situation worse. the tragedy is that increases in mail-in voting during a pandemic were predictable, but just like almost every other covid-19 issue faced by the US, the President and senate have been dangerously torpid. nevertheless, the accidental stuff, as is untargeted and decided not fraud, tends to result in there being little impact on national elections. just too random. it also don't take a genius to figure out that the thousands o' likely rejected ballots (in person voting also results in rejection and mistake btw, but typical at a rate 1/3 better than mail-in) is nevertheless gonna result in fewer total "lost" votes than if you ask americans, many o' whom have comorbidities, to stand in potential long lines and vote in-person. wisconsin primary: more than 200K americans has died from covid-19. the flu season is just beginning to start (we recommend any and all to get their flu shots asap btw) and many/most reputable epidemiologists is predicting a fall resurgence o' covid-19. shouldn't need force folks to weigh their health and their vote. oh, and @Pidesco were referencing the alternative reality expressed by one o' the boardies earlier and we were reminded o' an npr bit from relative recent. is worth a listen. you can hear echoes from med dan and gd and others in the those interviewed by the npr reporters in the following: https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510356/no-compromise am knowing it is literal hours of material but am gonna suggest giving it a shot. each segment is 35-45 minutes long. "facebook flock" is the offering which focuses on the audience o' the dorr brothers. one o' the reasons trump is so embraced by his base is that he has legitimized the alternative reality narrative. those who embrace an alternative reality narrative has not just been emboldened, but thanks to social media and alt-right news, the alternative reality narrative is now legit mainstream. it's not just ok to spout pizzagate and seth rich nonsense, but such stuff gets national media coverage and Presidential support via retweets. what pidesco and Gromnir think o' as alternative reality is embraced not just by the lunatic fringe, but by a frightening large percentage o' the US population, with fox, breitbart and an army o' social media warriors (including POTUS) pushing the narrative towards mainstream every hour of every day. HA! Good Fun!