Gromnir

political self-preservation is kinda a given, but the belief that the democrats woulda' defended hillary to the death is ridiculous. at least 1/3 of the party believed/believes hillary stole the 2016 nomination from bernie sanders. the public were always ambivalent 'bout hillary as were highlighted by exit polls which showed less than half democrats actual approved of hillary as a candidate. hillary never had fox news and breitbart and am radio championing her cause. as soon as public sentiment turned 'gainst hillary, which likely woulda' happened immediate after getting into office and facing a republican house and senate, individual democrats woulda' shifted into self-preservation mode. add a impeachment scandal? again, hillary didn't have a base like trump. sure, in california and new york there is folks who are as obtuse pro-hillary as there is pro-trump folks. we have met such folks, and is disconcerting to hear 'em defend hillary no matter what the issue and regardless o' any evidence put before them. those folks is a minority w/i the party. democrat politicians, save in those peculiar pockets o' resistance where their constituents is still die-hard pro-clinton, would not sacrifice their own political futures to defend an unpopular hillary. the trump situation is unique and has nothing to do with party. trump has a deathgrip on his base and republicans know it. is no way hillary faces same impeachment scandal as trump and manages similar base support. hillary wouldn't even come close to managing nixon level o' support. HA! Good Fun!

disagree. from larry tribe's book 'bout impeachment: "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." hillary, in particular, is a bad example for your example 'cause she were so unpopular at the time of the election. if she beat trump, it woulda' been by skin of teeth and she woulda' had republicans in both house and senate for first two years. trump, 'cause o' 'bove observations, could be impotent for the first thee years o' his term and still hold onto his base. the only reason why republicans in the house and senate is standing by trump is 'cause he has gone from being an unpopular President who even people his own party reviled, to a guy who has a stranglehold on his party in spite of a historical Presidential record o' policy failures as well as abuses o' constitutional law which occur almost daily. is no way hillary develops such a base, and the only reason republicans is willing to overlook the obvious overstep o' this President is 'cause o' the popularity o' trump which complete ignores his accomplishments or any kinda facts. am not seeing democrats putting their own necks on the line for an unpopular hillary. the only way your roles-are-reversed scenario holds is if you got a democrat President who is equal popular with a base, and maybe obama or bill clinton is that guy, and perhaps kennedy, but after he died. consider a different what if scenario. turn back time to september 2016 and tell us that after three years o' Presidency there would be evidence that the President colluded with a foreign state to get elected, but that 'cause there wasn't enough coordination 'tween the foreign power and the President, there weren't criminal conspiracy. same President fired the head of the fbi in part 'cause o' the investigation into election meddling and admitted to such during a televised nbc interview. furthermore, a special counsel who investigated the election meddling found at least ten instances o' possible obstruction of justice by wh and President, but because o' a department memo which states a sitting President cannot be indicted, the special counsel did not decide the merits o' those ten obstruction claims, although more than 1000 former fed prosecutors signed a letter memorializing their belief that anybody but the President would be indicted on obstruction charges. special counsel's report specific states that the President's answers to interrogatories were insufficient, misleading and in multiple instances, untruthful. furthermore, mere months after being cleared of conspiracy (but not cleared of collusion) the same President active solicited help from a foreign power to investigate a political rival, and when a whistleblower brought claims o' such to the inspector general for review, the President tried to bury the whistleblower complaint. at the time you likely believe hillary becomes President, but maybe not. regardless, is there any doubt in your mind such President would be facing impeachment? please. do you realize where we are today? because o' trump, norms has been complete shattered. a Presidential candidate may now active pursue dirt on political opponents with the help o' foreign powers just so long as the coordination 'tween the foreign power and the candidate isn't too excessive. in other words, a politician can accept dirt and need not actual report such to fbi or other authorities. furthermore, if trump gets away with his most recent bit o' wacky, Presidents will have free reign to have foreign powers investigate their political rivals. investigating corruption? HA! investigating "dirt" by its very nature means you is investigating that which is either illegal or embarrassing. every such "dirt" investigation will by necessity have a corruption analogue. oh, and future Presidents will also recognize that a blanket refusal to comply with any and all Congressional oversight related to an impeachment inquiry is a valid tactictic. wtf? many democrats is hypocrites. we listened to 'em defend bill clinton lies. again, weren't the monica lewinsky stuff which bothers us even if it got republicans angry at the time, but lie under oath is a freaking bridge too far. perhaps if democrats had stood up to clinton lies instead o' standing with him we wouldn't be where we are today with a pathological liar in the wh who uses gaslighting and alternative facts with indifference. am not defending democrats. at the same time, this is not simple a if the roles were reversed situation. this is complete unprecedented and as cynical as you are, there is no way three and a half years ago you predict everything which has happened with the trump Presidency w/o assuming impeachment. no way. HA! Good Fun!

yes, but precise 'cause o' the same politics issue. if a democrat President with this Congress had covered up a whistleblower complaint which accused the chief executive of using the office of the President to persuade a foreign power to investigate a political rival, such info woulda' made its way to the Senate intelligence committee. sure, the House needs do impeachment, but senate committees woulda' done extensive investigations and we would fundamental be exact where we are now, only with the house refusing to move forward with articles of impeachment. also, am not thinking that cnn and msnbc coulda' generate the kinda core base support that fox and am radio does with trump's base. fact coming out would shock democrat public far more than facts has discouraged republicans. also, keep in mind senate has been the folks packing the Courts since day 1 o' trump Presidency. is unprecedented what mcconnell is doing. complaints 'bout house wasting efforts on impeachment instead o' day-to-day business is complete bs when you look at what the house v. senate has actual done since the mid-term elections. business in the Senate has largely stopped to pack Courts and prepare for impeachment and for decades to come. with a democrat President, situation in senate would be complete different than it is today. regardless, am suspecting we would largely be in almost exact same position we are today, with no articles o' impeachment or trial, but there woulda' already been a whole lotta testimony in committees which would look extreme polarized and political. so disagreeing while agreeing from a complete 180 pov... with important recognition the democrats, who have a hard enough time getting people to vote, could never generate a base such as trump has and an observation that the Senate w/o a President from majority functions much different. HA! Good Fun!

your post were incidental to our response. as we noted, our issues were with obsidian perceptions and rationales and conclusions. were obsidians who avoided boards 'cause o' toxicity and a desire to reduce polarization resulting from developer posts. developer interaction were consistent in the bug-hunt section o' these boards, and nowhere else. we see this as a mistake particular given oversights such as the might calculation we mentioned earlier. HA! Good Fun!

for a couple o' years we were nominal in charge o' personnel decisions at a firm. the thing which made our job easier is current employees were often satisfied to take what they were given-- little need to negotiate to keep good employees. likely unnecessary recommendation: decide what you want and then ask for it. the different company made you an offer, but it don't stop you from making a counter proposal. worst that happens is they say, "no." decide what it would take to get you to move, then ask for it. get current employer involved as well. give'em a chance to meet or beat offer. am guessing shady knows such stuff and Gromnir advice sounds patronizing, but we were always shocked by how willing those we employed were to just take what were put in front o' them. didn't wanna bother with hassle or risk friction with current employer or whatever other reasons came to mind. for a good employee in demand, focus shouldn't be what is offered, but rather what you want. doesn't hurt to ask for what you want. HA! Good Fun!

just saw this, so sorry for long delay in response. josh leaving had nothing to do with the boards getting friendlier. what made board friendlier is release of poe. particular during the beta of poe, threads were often long and nasty. dozens o' issues had clear us v. them divides and when josh would jump into the fray to comment, predictable half of the community would be disappointed. this happened over and over and over again. deadfire community were/is a smaller and far more homogenized group than we had with poe. the folks enraged everytime they heard josh were advocating for a pivot away from bg2 were no longer posting at the obsidian boards once poe were released and it became apparent deadfire were gonna be even less like the game they wanted. josh leaving were incidental to friendliness o' deadfire fan feedback compared to poe development. yet another example o' obsidian making a causation v. correlation error? josh also let slip how he liked smaller and more limited sa boards with its registration requirements. less toxic. while his main claim were that he were allowing obsidian debates to unfold organic w/o the polarizing impact o' direct developer intrusion (ignoring fact we got a thread on this board dedicated to reposting every relevant josh post from sa and tumblr and twitter and wherever anyways,) were clear he were fatigued by toxicity o' obsidian board feedback, and he admitted as much while making seem like a secondary issue. oh, and while is gauche to quote self, am too lazy to essential repeat self, so... "our suggestion were too late, or too difficult to add... and the obsidian folks weren't bothering to read the obsidian board feedback anyway, which were made clear when josh noted how he were unaware 'til almost release o' deadfire the way in which might were affecting damage calculations in spite o' such being one o' the more common repeated concerns from the hardcore number crunchers routine posting in the deadfire feedback section o' obsidian's own freaking message board since almost firstest week o' the beta. reality o' pointlessness o' board feedback were utter mind blowing and complete disheartening... not that obsidian indifference annoyed us or anything o' the sort. not like am still bitter. nope." wouldn't have minded obsidian developers posting here less if they had been at least been paying attention to the board beyond bug-hunt sections... and the it-just-won't-#$@%ing-die ydwin threads where the artists were defending their aesthetic decisions. the problem is if @Hieronymous Alloy did not post an obsidian board concern at somethingawful, then there were a good chance the obsidian developers would never hear the board concern. am thinking the developers were admitted busy developing deadfire and far too enamoured o' their new telemetry toy to realize just what they were missing by avoiding their own boards. dunno. regardless, am thinking developers avoiding their own boards is a mistake on multiple levels and such avoidance had no impact on the relative civility o' the boards. HA! Good Fun!

am not disagreeing with you. nevertheless, the strategic elements o' kingmaker were terribad and am thinking it would make sense to distance self from such rather than make sound as if return is a highlight. the mass combat in the pnp ap is, for example not actual strategic in the sense o' how such is used in game vernacular. you don't spend time building settlements to develop resources to support your army in the ap. armies in the rules we mention from ultimate campaign, doesn't necessarily have the kinda game use o' "strategic" as pathfinder armies is functional treated as having a monster entry. resolve combat 'tween armies much as one does 'tween a party and a bunch o' kobolds. particular in wrath, little time spent on resource development and acquisition for support o' your armies, though as a role-play game you may of course make such strategic concerns more integral and the system is flexible enough to accommodate such concerns. the ap itself doesn't have a great deal of mass combat in any event, and you sure as heck aren't spending effort maintaining and developing armies over the course of six installments with need to manage quartermasters and fortifications and whatnot. is nothing which would make us see similarities to kingmaker kingdom building. not even close. manage crusade or manage kingdom if is using a "similar system," is a fungible difference as in many strategy war games, the kingdom management is largely intertwined with development and maintenance o' armies, no? is precisely those flavor o' wargames which we avoid btw. the limited instances o' mass combat in the wrath pnp ap is not a similar system to kingmaker. can't help but feel like this is a round hole and square peg issue. they got resources already developed from kingmaker for strategic elements, so they is gonna use 'em in warth, whether they fit or not? lord knows we don't want anything similar to kingmaker's kingdom building. as @the_dog_days observes, such was not well received by fans or reviewers o' kingmaker. for the most part, people who liked kingmaker liked it in spite o' kingdom building. if one were adding mass combat to wrath as a selling point, am thinking it would make sense to explain how such is not gonna be similar to kingmaker. HA! Good Fun!

"The unique part of Kingmaker was certainly the kingdom management, and I’m hoping the system will add more meaningful choices in assembling settlements and reduce the number of high risk/low reward events. “In the Wrath of the Righteous we want to keep the best parts of the mix of strategic and RPG experiences," Mishulin told me. "Make it slightly deeper, with a better connection to the core experience and tailored to the story of the Wrath of the Righteous. And of course, we will be listening to our fans to make this system even more enjoyable.” "From the sounds of it, we’ll see a return of a similar system. Perhaps Wrath will put a focus on managing the war effort against the demonic invaders similar to Mass Effect 3? I’d certainly like to see my next befuddled cleric confront a more serious threat, though I imagine he’ll probably be trying to figure out if his loan servicer will accept demon scales." am ambivalent 'bout the next owlcat offering for multiple reasons, but significant 'cause o' the return of kingdom building, which were unintuitive and frequent obtuse. am not a mythic fan, so wrath, even if is done well, is not our ideal. wrath also makes relationships with pivotal npcs part o' core gameplay, which is actual a standard aspect o' most single-player party-based crpgs, no? in pnp, you got a party o' rl players, but in crpgs, your fellow gamers is ordinarily replaced by joinable npcs who have their dialogues and stories written by the developers. unlike most pnp adventures, wrath already contemplates the equivalent o' 8 (+8) potential party npcs. potential joinable npcs already have considerable development in wrath. a few o' those joinables is if not essential to wrath, then at least have a high order o' importance. ... writing o' the companions (writing period) were kinda sucktastic in kingmaker. does not bode well if one cares 'bout narrative issues. am thinking owlcat should kinda play to their hack n' slash strengths rather than getting themselves into a situation where enjoyment o' a title depends on quality o' writing. but again, if you were a big fan o' kingmaker combat encounters and you like epic 1007s and monsters, then mythic looks like an ideal offering. aside: am thinking the three bestest ap's from paizo for pathfinder, regardless o' our personal tastes, were kingmaker, skull and shackles and carrion crown. the kingdom building which were a hallmark o' the pnp ap were handled poorly by owlcat. haven't played owlcat's game in months, so maybe they fixed eventual while we weren't looking, but am wary 'bout investing more hours of frustration in the title. skull and shackles were another sandbox ap with ships and pirates... were kinda what we hoped deadfire coulda' been. even so, am thinking it would be silly for owlcat to do a pirate game following deadfire. carrion crown were what we were hoping for, and such is in spite o' fact we do not actual like most gothic horror elements. there is a couple dozen 1e pathfinder aps. wrath wouldn't be in our top 10. our anticipation for the next owlcat game is therefore inordinate swayed by our pnp experience, which may be unfortunate. HA! Good Fun! ps please note that wrath involves mass combat. for example, installment #2 in the ap, best in the ap, has the players commanding a small army o' 100 paladins as they overcome numerous challenges and obstacles. "at times during "sword of valor," the pcs will face small armies of demons and cultists. these encounters are intended to be resolved with the narrative mass-combat rules detailed on pps. 234-250 of pathfinder rpg ultimate campaign." owlcat is biting off much to do wrath faithful. converse, they is gonna be leaving much undone if they wanna keep simple. wrath is an odd choice. am hopeful the developers pull off the strategic and narrative elements in wrath better than in kingmaker, but regardless, we cannot accuse owlcat o' going conservative or playing safe.

will start off by recognizing how the spread o' weapons were not fantastic in the base game. because backers could sponsor creation o' unique weapons, there were a glut o' deadfire sabres--a problem which the developers recognized and attempted to address in the expansions. is a fair complaint and obsidian recognized the mistake. that said, your itemization and metagaming concerns is actual a bit self contradictory. unlike in other crpgs, and even poe, there isn't overwhelming benefits in "specializing" in a particular weapon type. a first time player who happens to discover the chromoprismatic staff but doesn't have staff modal is hardly gonna suffer game-changing penalties by using the staff as their primary weapon. admitted, there were a few modal synergies which were extreme powerful (specific build barbarians with a morningstar for example) but the morningstar user who finds the chromoprismatic staff late in the game is unlikely gonna agonize 'bout failure to acquire staff modal earlier. from a practical perspective, there is considerable less need to metagame weapons choices in deadfire than most any similar crpg. in bg2 for instance, how many paladins with metagame knowledge chose other than the two-handed sword option? were possible to go sword and board, but holy avenger made choose 2-h a forgone conclusion for most bg2 players. got a similar paladin situation in deadfire? in deadfire, being literal the only person to play a a berserker shaman o' wael 'ccording to telemetry early after release, we used the lord darryn's volgue for much o' the game w/o ever taking the pollaxe modal. switched 'tween morningstar and pollaxe and 'cause it weren't in the initial release when we played our contemplative, we didn't know 'bout karabörü 'til we stumbled on it relative late in the game, but we got considerable use from it as well. yeah, if for pure role-play purposes you wanna use hatchets, then play deadfire results in a good chance you can play the majority o' the game w/o finding frostbite. if you are dead set on being a dual-wielding hatchet user, then for much o' the game you got the plant killer weapon and xoti's sickle, which would necessitate you having high religion to make use o' and would obvious further narrow rp choice. whatever. however, and is a big however, if you are using hatchets as part o' dual-wield, or as a tank or as a one-hand specialist, there is gonna be a multitude o' other equal viable (superior) options available to you throughout the game, and forgo a spear or club or dagger 'cause you just really wanna use a hatchet is kinda on you, no? dunno, but you make one complaint seem like two by mentioning metagame, which don't seem fair given deadfire's reduction o' the metagame conundrum. am disagreeing with the nekataka complaint, but is more o' a taste thing so our pov is no more valid than yours. athkatla is often held up as a kinda gold standard for crpg cities, and very little 'bout bg2's city were essential to critical path story once you emerged from tutorial dungeon. need earn money to leave athkatla and get to brynnlaw. side with one o' two factions who got only brief impact on game. fact there is much to do in nekataka w/o being railroaded to follow specific critical path quest lines were, in our mind, a positive, and the factions were much more integral and had enduring impact in deadfire compared to bg2. nevertheless, am admitting is a matter o' taste. am not disagreeing that priest flexibility in particular were hurt by the change from vancian to per encounter w/o a serious change to the spell catalog being implemented along with the change. we assume to save resources, the obsidian developers made minor adjustments to poe priest spells and in so doing they made far too many spells nothing but trap choices for the unwary. if you only got a couple spell choices per level, then highly situational abilities is gonna be objective bad choices. felt lazy. were any number o' options we saw which could ameliorate the problem even if the obsidian folks were too lazy or overworked to fundamental alter spell catalogs. during late beta we mentioned how providing "prayer beads or vade mecum or medicine bag or some deity-specific object which performs a similar but lesser role as does the wizard grimoire," woulda' been enough to make all those situational use priest spells viable. *shrug* our suggestion were too late, or too difficult to add... and the obsidian folks weren't bothering to read the obsidian board feedback anyway, which were made clear when josh noted how he were unaware 'til almost release o' deadfire the way in which might were affecting damage calculations in spite o' such being one o' the more common repeated concerns from the hardcore number crunchers routine posting in the deadfire feedback section o' obsidian's own freaking message board since almost firstest week o' the beta. reality o' pointlessness o' board feedback were utter mind blowing and complete disheartening... not that obsidian indifference annoyed us or anything o' the sort. not like am still bitter. nope. HA! Good Fun!

missed opportunity. is no accusation that cnn knowing reported inaccurate but rather that the claims from others cnn accurate reported were so unbelievable that cnn had to know the claims were untrue when reported. is a ridiculous lawsuit, particular as nunes is a public figure. therefore, nunes mighta' well have accused cnn as being the mother#@%&ers o' fake news. HA! Good Fun!

am not a fan o' the particular ap being used, but am suspecting it will be a popular choice. wrath is the munchkin ap. wrath uses the pathfinder mythic rules which gives players and foes special abilities and powhaz. sooper weapons and uber villains in abundance. is not a great sandbox ap and is perhaps less depth than many o' the other adventure paths from paizo-- is a paucity o' creative non-combat options. that said, if you wanna have your party o' demigods face down epic fiends and their hordes o' powerful minions, this is the ap for you. HA! Good Fun!

not a scandal, but funny on multiple levels. HA! Good Fun!

set the wayback machine for 2003 https://www.nma-fallout.com/threads/briareus-speaks-out.152662/#post-3024645 fallout was not a good seller. ps:t, given the investment by interplay, were likely worse. were fallouts and ps:t bad games? if they were good games, they shoulda' sold, yes? am not sure what is a good game. am knowing there is games we like. am knowing there is games we like less even though we believe such games were well-made. is games we marvel at their popularity given flaws we see in the title. am not sure what is a good game, but am certain developers wanna be part o' creating such. the problem is game developers cannot make good games or bad games unless they also make games which is profitable enough given the needs o' the developer/publisher. we got no problem saying deadfire were a better title than poe1 in all but a few aspects. sadly, in spite of fact obsidian writers had more time and were better organized when creating the deadfire narrative than they did for poe, mistakes were made with deadfire storytelling which were inexplicably unseen until too late. even so, we do not believe our narrative concerns were what significant hurt deadfire sales. as such, is not difficult for us to say w/o equivocation that deadfire were a better game than poe, and we thought poe were a good game. apply transitive property. the thing is, and we stated this earlier, being a better game is not what deadfire needed for increased sales. ironic and counter-intuitive as it may seem, designing deadfire to be better than poe were the fundamental design flaw which doomed deadfire sales. those folks who didn't like poe combat weren't gonna see refinement o' poe combat as an improvement. those folks who didn't like obsidian's take on a class-based system were not gonna see further distancing from 2e and 3e d&d as an improvement. obsidian made deadfire for those who liked poe. obsidian improved poe. a reasonable mistake, but in hindsight, a fatal mistake. tragedy is even now am not certain obsidian realizes what went wrong. deadfire is a better game than poe. poe were a good game. truth is better and good is not particular helpful labels save for those folks arguing on the arse-end o' developer message boards past point which any o' this matters. rage at capitalism or greed or whatnot, but first goal has gotta be to generate 'nuff revenue to make the next game a reality, and the game after the next one. obsidian hubris were in thinking good and better were meaningful. aside: "exploration" is a trap. have been banging this drum since bg2 release and am certain we will continue playing to a deaf audience, but exploration is a complete unwinnable battle for developers. single biggest complaint o' bg1 other than too easy/too hard were the lack o' depth o' encounters on all those wilderness maps. spent hours mowing fog o' war to reveal extreme brief encounters. suckage. "do better bio!" bioware listened to fan appeals and instead o' a whole bunch o' pointless hobgoblin, zombie and gnoll encounters on mostly empty wilderness maps, the developers focused instead on adding depth and density to map locations. planar sphere and umar hills and de'arnise keep became the norm. 'course after release o' bg2 the biggest complaint other than too easy/too hard were how folks missed bg1 style exploration. ... poe and deadfire developers faced same exploration conundrum, but reversed. given finite resources available, poe developers focused on adding depth to a limited number o' maps, which meant reduced 'exploration." complaints result. deadfire solution obsidian came up with were to add many island encounters and to provide ship combat to be making the inevitable world map exploration less tedious. unfortunate, the ship combat were unfulfilling, but even if the resource sink o' ship combat had been avoided altogether, such would not have changed the complaints 'bout all the rando mini encounters scattered 'cross the world map. "do better obsidian!" exploration is a trap feature. developers will never satisfy fans 'cause no matter what they do, some significant % o' fans will always complain 'bout the developers efforts. personal, we prefer depth and density over the breadth o' exploration, but for every Gromnir there is at least one person who wants exact opposite. doomed. advice: pick whichever approach seems most appropriate to game and setting and do best possible but ignore inevitable exploration complaints from fans. exploration balancing is a fundamental unwinnable battle for a developer to fight. HA! Good Fun! ps in times gone bye, briareus were a black isle developer, which is why the nma crowd didn't dismiss his observations out of hand as sacrilege and/or heretical.

to wash away the jazz we offer a couple from rhiannon giddens. HA! Good Fun!

no. trump did things. he actual did sign muslim ban executive order. he did block folks on twitter. he did take away reporter credentials and he also prevented scientists from submitting factual reports. after trump "infringed" on the First Amendment rights o' many folks, those people then took him to court and had the President's actions overturned. doesn't mean trump actions never happened, save for those with memento kinda brain damage. would explain a few things. HA! Good Fun!

can't think of any comedy drama action films? lethal weapon 2 kinda stuff? fifth element? as for black widow, am calling fake news. after all, last we heard the trump administration were insisting natasha romanova is actual a ukrainian agent. HA! Good Fun!

*chuckle* we could be here a long time, but even before he took office, trump had folks sign nondisclosure agreements with individuals who were to be part o' the executive branch. such ndas is unenforceable and abhorrent to the First Amendment, but such would force individuals to engage in costly litigation vacate. trump also, during his campaign, made clear he would do what he could to overturn ny times v. sullivan. hasn't had much luck so far, but he tries. oh, and let us not forget the muslim ban. again, clear repugnant to the First Amendment, but his muslim ban, which were shot down by multiple courts before being transformed into a ban on refugees and immigrants from specific nations instead o' religions were a major campaign promise from before day 1... and he went through with it. for chrissakes, trump made the muslim ban even less likely to be upheld by adding in a provision which gave preferences to christian refugees. trump has taken considerable actions to silence executive branch scientists and experts... and had courts chastise him. trump has taken away credentials from reporters who spoke ill of him... and had courts smack him down for such temerity. trump's attempts to block twitter users were also overturned by the courts on first amendment basis. etc. again, we could be here a LONG time giving specific examples o' this administration attacking first amendment rights, and getting smacked down by the courts. qq all you want, but you asked. HA! Good Fun!

as much as we disliked harris, we got some sympathy for her. am thinking she were going for a tough-as-nails kinda thing and it backfired. trump being toxic, aggressive and unapologetic garnered him republican voters who had nevertheless voted for obama. is also noteworthy how kamala harris gained much positive attention from here televised judiciary committee questionings o' folks such as ag barr where she were aggressive and uncompromising. with so many democrat candidates, perhaps harris felt she needed to be different and what got her on the national stage in the first place were unflinching combativeness. possible get a few o' those obama voters to flip and maybe appeal to a similar untapped segment w/i the democrat party? not an unreasonable approach. am suspecting some will blame on gender. "if kamala was a man, she would be applauded for her strength rather than condemned for her cattiness." *shrug* am gonna disagree, but perhaps we are too blind to gender disparity. am fully admitting we may be overlooking unfair bias. personal, Gromnir is fatigued by the toxicity hurl mentions and it not matter which side o' the aisle it originates. sure, in committee when harris is delving for truth from an uncooperative witness, we expect and desire prosecutorial decisiveness. were that only a decade past? HA! Good Fun! ps as soon as kamala harris promised to executive order the second amendment into oblivion, we knew she had lost gd's vote, and many rural independents who were essential in trump's slim victory over clinton.

biden is a moderate. he is a moderate who could conceivably find common ground across the aisle, and he is also moderate by current democrat standards. biden is popular in large part 'cause o' his ties to obama as 'posed to clinton. kinda sucks for democrats that biden is as cartoonish as were dan quayle, if a bit more likeable. other front runners such as warren and sanders is hardly clinton camp. is collective sleepless nights from wall street at the thought o' sanders or warren getting elected by a landslide and exacting major dometic changes. sanders and warren is not part o' the clinton establishment. wall street adored the clinton establishment. even the folks such as buttigeg and booker and harris never fail to distance themselves from the clinton era folks who championed bank deregulation. as a whole, the current democratic candidates is less vocal 'bout foreign policy save to agree that trump is doing wrong... well, other than gabbard. this is disturbing 'cause as we have stated many times, the President has more freedom to act insofar as foreign policy is concerned. should be talking more foreign policy 'cause Presidents almost invariably have more influence on foreign policy than domestic. regardless, the clinton folks will be around for a long time in one capacity or another, but they are not the big dogs o' the party. clinton era people were part o' deal brokering for decades and they ain't gonna just disappear. favors is owed. such is politics. is nevertheless amusing how clinton folks is somehow becoming conspiracy fodder akin to the illuminati. the power that be leading the party is consistent rejecting clinton policies, but that is just camouflage. no doubt the clintonians has meetings beneath the jefferson memorial and secretly plot world domination, eh? who is democrats in 2019? at the moment you got the people refusing to take off the rose-tinted glasses o' those who championed obama policies, which initial looked progressive but turned out to be moderate save for a disturbing indifference to personal liberties and Constitutional norms. you also got the progressives who is pretending as if they can get major overhauls o' every domestic issue under the sun w/o any bipartisan support. not sure which camp we find more worthy o' pity. in any event, you might as well be trying to sell us on the continuing kennedy influence... which admitted looked a great deal like clinton's policies when viewed with benefit o' hindsight. surprising hawkish and consistent mendacious. regardless, easiest stance for any current democrat candidate to take is to point out how they ain't part o' the clinton establishment. takes no courage to do so. gabbard actual got a major boost in campaign contributions and support when hillary went after her with the nonsense russian asset bit. ... ok, second easiest stance for a 2019 democrat is anti-clinton. easiest should be anti-trump, and gabbard has problems getting that right. HA! Good Fun!

am getting it. is why we mentioned obama, who ran against not only a clinton, but the clinton establishment. sure, the clinton era folks has had a strong influence on the party, but particular following hillary's embarrassing failure against an almost as unpopular trump in 2016, those who have connections to the clinton establishment incurred a stain to their collective reputations beyond even what they suffered when obama took down hillary in 2008. again, one of gabbard's selling points is the animosity she has drawn from old guard democrats and clinton folks. in 2019 is not particular risky to set self apart from clinton folks. in fact, is an advantage. HA! Good Fun!

you make far too much o' clinton. is not clinton gabbard needs worry 'bout. obama got elected in part 'cause he were selling a pivot away from clinton. in fact, obama ran against clinton. criticizing clinton does not hurt gabbard any more than it hurts sanders. however, gabbard routine and public criticized obama... on fox. clinton ain't gabbard's problem. gaining clinton animosity is, we suspect, one o' the few things keeping gabbard in the race. this is our concern 'bout gabbard. in spite o' all the negatives one may see in her and her campaign, a single issue, which she is kinda less than full transparent 'bout, is the issue which has folks preternatural loyal to her. am thinking as much as we dislike what gabbard stands for on a whole range o' issues, am thinking it is a good thing to have somebody taking an aggressive anti-interventionist stand. is an issue worthy o' discussion. however, we would prefer if just 'bout any other candidate were championing anti-intervention, 'cause she is an otherwise terrible candidate in our estimation. HA! Good Fun!

being a 2-win team provides a unique freedom insofar as playcalling is concerned. weirdest nfl play we ever saw were late 1970s bears v lions. 4th and 11. detroit center doesn't hand the ball to the qb. instead, after a kinda fake snap, the center puts ball back on the turf and a lions guard picks up the ball and runs it for a 12 yd gain and a first down. guard could run the ball w/o penalty 'cause after center put on the turf, it counted as a fumble. everybody on the field goes right save for the guard with the ball and a single deep bears safety. we were at the game, so no tv announcers or replay to explain what happened. had no idea what occurred on the field 'til we read 'bout it in the paper the next day. lions were a 2-win team that season. HA! Good Fun!

the more we learn of gabbard, the more we dislike. no doubt gd feels same 'bout all the candidates, but am suspecting gabbard's strong (albeit extreme limited) appeal is 'cause o' a single issue: anti-interventionism. Tulsi Gabbard Is Not Your Friend anti-interventionism is a BIG issue, and can see how it could out balance all other issues, particular with combat veterans. sure, she ain't genuine anti-interventionism as she favors increased use o' drone strikes and special forces, but majority o' troops would be brought home if gabbard got her way. perhaps is more to her that gd likes, but for most folks we speak to, bring troops home is the singular issue which sets her apart in a positive way. am actual not certain what is gabbard's campaign goals, 'cause her support in hawaii is actual diminishing as is her general support in the democratic party even as she campaigns national. doesn't appear to be a snowball's chance in kilauea's crater she will get the democrat nomination for President, and we can't see anybody choosing her for a running mate. steady 3% won't cut it. additional, gabbard has not yet announced she will run again for her Congressional seat. the most obvious challenger for gabbard at home is a democrat who is also a combat veteran and has been gobbling up endorsements from former governors and organizations. as such her future as a democrat, even in her home state, appears tenuous and her presidential candidacy is hurting her staus w/i the party and 'mongst her own constituents. am not seeing a political future for gabbard w/o a party change, but nobody else wants her. republicans love her when she speaks o' flaws in democrat party, but not so much when she speaks o' domestic issues. traditional libertarians is gonna have a problem with her given her stance on lgbt issues and her label as an islamophobe. cozy up with assad and modi don't look good anywhere save for rt broadcasts. other than anti-interventionism, her only broad source o' appeal is her anti-hillary position, and such a position is hardly unique in 2019. am kinda opposite o' gd. more we learn 'bout gabbard, and more we see her, the less likely we would vote for her. with a few notable exceptions such as harris, steyer and williamson, is hardly anybody we like less than gabbard. HA! Good Fun!

kaep was a terrible qb when he were still in the league. folks seem to forget how much heat he were getting in the 1.5 years leading up to his sit-during-the-anthem protest. am thinking is safe to say he hasn't gotten better the last couple years he has not been playing. Colin Kaepernick doesn’t deserve a second chance as an NFL starter this were a 2015 story, and it were hardly an outlier. kaepernick had success under a single coach when that coach were relying on a system almost nobody uses in 2019. is maybe two teams (one team if am being complete objective) in the nfl who could use kaep w/o complete retooling offense and they already have starters. chances are kaep is good enough to be a third string or backup somewheres, but he has always wanted starter money, and such is not reasonable. the bears have chase daniel as a backup to trubisky, and for the bears am thinking daniel is a better option than kaep... and the choice ain't even close in our mind. blough? why not blough? is late november and season is over for detroit. you honest think kaep would sign a league minimum contract to finish out the season for detroit? oh, and the workout situation let nfl folks know just how much drama they were gonna need embrace if they signed kaepernick. again, 'cause is easy to forget, most football guys had soured on kaep in 2015. is almost 2020. HA! Good Fun!

The Ten Best History Books of 2019 has been an unusual few years as save for a single outlier year, the number o' books on the list we has read before list is released has decreased. in fact, this year have only read one such title: American Radicals: How Nineteenth-Century Protest Shaped the Nation only just finished american radicals a couple weeks previous to list release or we woulda' been blanked. been kinda focused on US nativism, particular 1920s, so have kinda missed on a number o' worthy titles. HA! Good Fun!