Ranxerox

Do we have year that this is all suppose to be occurring? The source of the Nile hasn't yet been found so we know that it is before 1858. Since the first or the Wild West Shows wasn't until 1883 so if we use that as a date then Ethan is an anachronism. I suspect that trickshooters probably out date the complete shows so story teller/trickshooters could existed before 1858. However, I pretty sure the actual term wild west show is used series so that point is probably moot. Yeah, I think this is one of those campaigns were each player gets to make the character that they want and nobody looks at the history books. Any character concept that could be found somewhere in the 1800s seems to be fair game.

I'm guessing that they wanted a war without clear cut bad guys and therefore without clear cut good guys. Coming to the World of Men i during WWII, of course she would support the Allies, the other side is throwing people into ovens in the millions. Whereas, in WWI it is harder to say which side to support or even whether it is worth getting involved. Also, it makes a better war with which to critique war as it is practiced in the World of Men and what it says about men.

Just a heads-up that the first 2 seasons of the Showtime series Penny Dreadful are now available on Netflix. The series is a lot of fun and would be a great source of inspiration for a Victorian Hero campaign. Indeed all the principle characters of the series are pretty easy to imagine as heroic level Hero PCs.

It would be hard for a prosecutor to argue that Secretary Clinton "otherwise made available" the classified information that was present in some of her emails when there is no evidence at all that her server were ever hacked. Keeping information encrypted, behind firewalls on a server with up to date anti-viral software is not making it available. Moving something from one safe to a slightly less secure safe (or possibly more secure safe in this case) isn't the same as making it available, unless you do so with the intent of the having the less secure safe broken into.

Speeding tickets aren't felonies. Most felonies involve some sort of intent. You can flat out kill someone, and if it was done without intending to or at least gross negligence on your part, you probably haven't committed a felony. It is just a tragic accident. If some negligence was involved but not enough rise to the level of gross negligence, then you can be sued by the persons next of kin but you can't be criminally convicted.

To be fair, reality frequently forgets that it is not Satire.

A bit old but not reported here Senate Votes to Require Women to Register for the Draft

So crimelords, pridators, suspected terrorist, school teachers and daycare workers, eh? Yep, Ms Greenburg always did strike me as suspicious. You just can't trust anyone who knows that much about math. I get the impression that the list is less of a watch list and more of an information sharing list. Something to make sure that, if a daycare worker is convicted of a sex crime or a gun owner is convicted of a felony outside of their home state, the information gets back to the relevant people inside their home state. Since not allowing convicted felons to own guns isn't overly controversial one would think that sharing information about their felony convictions wouldn't be all that controversial either. Of course this being the US, everything about guns has to be controversial, so that thought would be wrong.

Ten of the the thirteen states classified as being without paper trails are southern states. Now I realize that "Former First Lady Of Arkansas Beats The Tar Out Of Vermont Socialist In Southern Contest" lacks something in the way of conspiracy theory draw, but it would be just as accurate of a name for the the paper. As for the exit poll data portion of the paper, it has noted by other articles that Sanders does much better on election day than he does in write in ballots. No doubt this conjures images for many Sanders supporters of Clinton staffers mailing in hundred of thousands or millions of fraudulent mail in ballots. However running an election fraud on that scale without being given away by your own workers would be neigh impossible, and it is not necessary to explain the discrepancy. Absentee ballots have long been known to be more popular among older voters than younger voters Like absentee ballots, Clinton's popularity also skews towards older voters. So Clinton's out performing in mail in ballots does not need some dark, difficult to hide conspiracy to explain. Grandma mailed in her ballot two weeks before the election and didn't talk to any exit pollsters while the kids went to the polls in person and did. Look, The only big surprise of the Democratic primary was Sanders' win in Wisconsin. All of Clinton's victories were in line with what pre-election polling indicated that they would be. None of Hillary's victories were considered upsets, I really don't know what if anything that I could say or show that would convince you that the election wasn't stolen by the Clinton campaign, but it wasn't.

As smoking guns go, it is kinda underwhelming. So, back in 2015 the DNC was already thinking Hillary Clinton would be the 2016 Democratic nominee. Well, back in 2015 everybody thought that Hillary would be the 2016 Democratic nominee, so why is that a surprise? They had a clear front runner and they started coordinating with that front runner early with an eye to the general election. How is that a scandal? Now show me some emails of the DNC doing something or plotting to do something against the Sanders' campaign and I will be shocked and outraged. However, since this was a full blown hack of the type that you would expect to uncover all the dirty secrets and it didn't find any evidence of actual misdoings against the Sanders campaign, that suggest that no such evidence exist to be found.

Full Frontal Libertarian Convention Coverage Normally, given its posting rules, I would be worried putting a comedy piece in this thread. However, in this case, she just lets them speak for themselves. So I think I'm pretty safe.

Yeah, but we are use to a Carol that has been a hero for a while. Originally, she looked like this ...

I agree about the pivot. In his speech on Tuesday night, Sanders said, "Next Tuesday we continue the fight, We are going to fight hard to win the primary in Washington, D.C., and then we take our fight for social, economic, racial and environmental justice to Philadelphia." You can hear the pivot in that statement as he starts by talking about the primary in DC, but by Philadelphia he isn't talking about the primary and is instead talking about the movement. Even if he can't be the nominee, he wants his people at the convention, enthusiastic and pushing for progressive goals. Hopefully his supporters will be as energetic in the name of the cause as they have been in the name of their candidate. I'm not sure I agree with about the open primary thing though. Sanders did very well in a number of the caucus states, whereas California which has an open primary on the Democrat side* was very kind to Hillary. There were a bunch of closed polling places in Arizona, but that was probably just Republican shenanigans for the statewide contest since they where in heavily minority counties and Hillary strongest support has been among minority voters. Had those polling places been open it is likely that her Arizona win would have been even bigger. American's have been taught for generations that socialism is a dirty word. While parts of the population have been moving to the left and are more becoming warmer to it, but I think that it is going to take more than easier primary voting to get the bulk of the population to embrace it. The enthusiasm so many young people have for Senator Sanders bodes well for socialism future in the US, but I just don't think that as a people we are there yet.

Of course they aren't, but if Sanders stays in the race and keeps attacking Clinton right up through the convention and leaves the convention nursing sour grapes, that could really hurt her. I have said that Clinton doesn't need the votes of people who hate her guts in order to beat Trump, and I stand by that statement. She does, however, need the votes of Sanders supporters who don't hate her but aren't necessarily crazy about her either. More over, she needs to be able to stop worrying about attacks from the left so she can focus the attacks from the right. This being attacked from both flanks stuff is for the birds. I'm hoping that megaplayboy is right and Sanders will drop by mid-month. I can see how it would help Sanders to play hard to get at this point, and I don't begrudge him attaching strings to his support. After all, that is probably how Hillary got the Secretary of State job. Part of me is just worried that listening to 20 thousand young people chant his name has gone to his head, and maybe he isn't seeing things entirely rationally at this point. So the sooner he cuts his deal with Clinton and the DNC, the sooner I can stop worrying about the prospect of a President Trump.

Actually in 2008 the popular vote between Obama and Clinton was much closer than that between Sanders and Clinton. The difference in that contest was on 42 thousand and represented only 0.1% of the total vote. link. Given the closeness of that election, of course she didn't drop out until the very end.

I have a question for Bernie Sanders supporters which is most people here. Early in the campaign there was talk about the possibility of Sanders winning the popular vote and Clinton using her tight relationship with the super delegates to "steal" the election from him. This was something that many Sander's supporters thought Hillary might attempt to do since she was viewed as being corrupt and amoral.. After tomorrow's primaries even if Sanders has a really good day, he is still going to be at least 200 pledged delegates and 2.5 millions votes shy of Clinton's totals. Despite this, Sanders and his campaign team have been saying that they plan on going to the convention and attempting to get enough super delegates to flip his way in order to overcome his shortage in pledged delegates. How do you people feel about this?

I don't think I would mention the Libertarian Party without noting that it is popular with business types looking to get out from government regulations like the Koch brothers. Also, I would like to add my own personal favorite protest vote, the Peace and Freedom Party, to the list. They are basically a bunch of peace activist and hippies.

As the only poster at this board who (to my knowledge) has declared Hillary to be their first choice candidate, I would like to say that while I have occasionally voted for candidates that I was 'meh' about when I liked their opponent even less, I have never voted for a candidate who I flat out disliked. So, I certainly am not going to ask you to. Go ahead and cast your vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or Gloria La Riva. My feelings will not be hurt*. * -since I know that worries about hurting my feelings were keeping you awake at night Let me let you in on a little secret: there is nothing amazing or miraculous about Donald Trump's primary victories. He is out giving a message that a sizable section of GOP base has been wanting to hear for years if not decades and as a result they are supporting him. See nothing really strange or unexpected about that. I bother to say this, because political punditry was caught off guard and has been acting like Donald Trump is some astounding thing and that no election upset is conceivably beyond him. This is poppycock. Trump has some really committed supporters and there are enough of them to rock the Republican primary process, but they don't actually make up a very big percentage of the general electorate. To put things in perspective, to date during the primary Hillary Clinton has received 12.5 million votes to Donald Trump's 10.7 million votes. This is despite the fact that she is running against a likable challenger with a message that appeals to large number of Democratic primary voters and he has been running against, well, Ted Cruz. What I am saying here is that you don't need try to talk Bernie supporters who can't stand Hillary to vote for her anyway. They can all follow their consciences and everything will be just fine. Hillary will win anyway.

Trouble is you jumped the gun. Six months ago, Sanders seemed like he might be heading to the White House, and his many supporters at this board didn't think that he sucked. Now that Sanders campaign is for all intents and purposes history, more board posters* might be inclined to adopt "Everybody Sucks 2016" as their motto. As in most things, timing is critical when making political pronouncements. * - Not me, of course. Hillary has been my first choice all along, and consequently, I'm generally pleased with how the election is shaping up.

Love is a pretty good reason to go someplace. Edit: opps

I find myself feeling kinda embarrassed to have explain this here of all places. Supergirl is clearly a 4 SPD brick. This means that despite the whole super speed thing she has going on that she can only perform 4 actions in a turn. The way she set about rescuing the falling people she had to spend one action phase to rescue each individual, and clearly CatCo Tower was not tall enough for her to get to her 3rd action phase before Kelly went splat. I would like to think that Supergirl's GM intended for Supergirl to move some large soft object that was conveniently placed nearby (in Supergirl's case that could include a couple blocks away) to break their falls, and that Supergirl's player just didn't think to look for such an object. However, it is also possible that the GM was being d*** and wanted to force Supergirl's player to make the dramatic choice. As for the fight with Alex, once again you aren't looking a Supergirl's build. Alex's DCV is at least as good as Supergirl's OCV, so with the -2 OCV penalty of the disarm maneuver, the move just isn't going to work most of the time. Trying to perform a ranged disarm is going to be even harder since against a sword that is a -3 OCV penalty, and despite your talk of super-accuracy, Supergirl has done nothing to indicate she has any levels in ranged combat. Also, using a sign post or telephone poll isn't the winning strategy you think it is because Alex would just use her sword to block the attack. Blocked attacks do no damage or knockback and the blocker get automatic first action in the phase if the both act in the same action phase (and since Alex also has a 4 SPD they always act in the same phases). So as you can see attacking with weapon of opportunity is a risky strategy. I hope these explanations help.

This story might have gotten more attention if primary results were not in general agreement with the polls leading up to the primary. Trump did a bit better than polls indicated that he would, but that may simply be the result of Trump best voter demographic being a group that is not inclined to participate in phone polls. Democrat Poll and Primary Results Republican Poll and Primary Results

Yes, gravity has reasserted itself. Sanders needed win New York at the very least and really he needed a big win. Instead Clinton won big, exceeding her poll numbers of just a couple of weeks prior. In the April 26th primaries, the polls strongly favor Clinton to win the delegate rich states with Sanders taking the delegate poor states. When it's done Clinton is likely have her lead back up where it was before Sander's recent string of victories.

I don't think General Lane has been updated on her plan. They talked to him about the kryptonite bomb, but did they let him know that they had chose to try a different route instead?