Gromnir

would be nice if a few real republicans were around who had the courage to speak against hate. HA! Good Fun! ps antifa sucks. while there may not be a genuine singular antifa leadership or group, those who identify as antifa has consistent stated they is approving' the use o' violence to respond to hateful protests and messaging by those they identify as fascists-- is their raison d'être in fact. use violence to respond to admitted subjective offensive speech is wrong when is white supremacists doing or antifa or the federal stormtroopers william barr and donald trump illegal and Unconstitutional sent to portland.

am agreeing save for two small qualifications: 1) we were a "fan" o' harris previous to her Presidential run 2) it appeared as if the campaign decided that for the debate, harris should play the role o' the backup qb running out the clock. while we never considered harris one our favorite options to replace trump, in her capacity as a US senator she did a fantastic job questioning committee witnesses. jeff sessions, william barr and brett kavanaugh all got pantsed and had their lunch money taken by harris. like her or dislike her, she were highly effective at making uncooperative witnesses look like bumbling dissemblers, and as much as we dislike william barr, "bumbling" is rare gonna be the way we describe him. ... after harris' failed run at the Presidency, a narrative which gained disproportionate traction were that American voters couldn't handle a strong woman. dunno. maybe. am unable to speak for voters not Gromnir. am knowing the reason we approved o' harris were precise 'cause she were smart and tough and were willing to adopt a take no prisoners approach with individuals who were lying or misleading. strong woman were not a problem for us. have mentioned previous how we began to dislike harris as she ran for the democratic Presidential nomination in part 'cause she were one o' the democrat candidates most willing to adopt the tactics o' trump. no need to repeat old criticisms. nevertheless, is noteworthy how we actual started out as a harris fan and then soured on her more recent. perhaps more significant, am thinking the biden/harris ticket is cognizant o' the current advantage they got over trump/pence in most battleground states and almost daily, trump does something to further annoy women and seniors. even though we think pence did better than harris in the debate (better by an extreme small margin), am suspecting he didn't help his campaign with suburban women last night, and he needed such help. as long as biden and harris do nothing overt to blow their lead, they win... or so appears to be the strategy. am not sure if we complete agree with such an approach, but is reasonable under the circumstances. trump and biden can't beat the covid-19, healthcare and economic pain issues which is foremost in the minds o' most Americans. when the backup qb is in the game and you got a big lead in the 4th quarter... *shrug* similar to shady, the needle moved not at all for us insofar as our approval o' harris. if every american were viewing same as Gromnir (what a horrific notion) can't help but think biden and harris would consider such a quiescent non reaction to be a victory. HA! Good Fun!

we already addressed this. full quote on subject: "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." identify that the writers wanted a gith companion is both illustrative and missing the point. coulda' been githzerai. coulda been an atypical jolly pirate o' gith, or even an outcast githyanki. coulda' been whatever the writers chose 'cause, y'know, imagination. regardless, a githyanki companion (while hardly necessary) who is hostile is indeed reasonable, but that were missing the forest for the trees. author o' the article used a specific example to illustrate a personality quirk (set o' quirks) common to all the initial companions. weren't so much that a priestess o' an evil god or an undead rogue would individual be untrustworthy or unpleasant companions. rather is no reason you need start with a priestess o' shar, an undead rogue and a githyanki who is all curiously homicidal unless that were your intent. author of article asks obvious question: "why?" perhaps going for comical grimdark by making your companions as unpleasant as possible, 'cause, y'know, that's drama. oh, and as you mention romance, am gonna suggest the more valid criticism is that your companions who a few hours past were trying to kill you become devoted and even amorous is stretching credulity far more than is having a githyanki companion act other than murderous, but somehow such eye-roll fodder is not only considered reasonable but is expected in crpgs. baffling. HA! Good Fun!

fly won, but am gonna give pence a distant second... but not by much over harris. overall pence scored a few more points than harris, but on covid and transfer o' power he sorta flubbed and flopped. harris really coulda' hammered pence on the rose garden and the white house failure to follow the cdc guidelines. curious omission. harris wouldn't answer 'bout Court packing. am curious why the biden ticket thinks the issue is so untouchable. meh. this debate pushes the polls even less than the last. HA! Good Fun!

ps keep in mind we do not personal have a problem with unlikable or antagonistic companions. unlikable and antagonistic characters is frequent more compelling. nevertheless am recognizing not only is our opinion a bit o' an outlier, but even Gromnir would get annoyed if all companions were uniform overt, unpleasant and caustic. HA! Good Fun!

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!