Dr.Device

Oh, hey, look! It turns out there probably was some significant vote fraud this election. You'll never guess on the part of which party. 

It really sucks that once the dust settles, this will be used to "prove" that that there is a need for strict voter id laws, when no degree of strict voter id would have stopped this.

10 hours ago, Badger said:

 

As long as she doesn't send more than 30,000, it's no big deal.  Or so I was told two years ago.

 

Edit: After the way the media treated the Clinton e-mail, I have absolutely no use for their fake outrage, now.

The big difference here is that the law Ivanka broke was not a law when Clinton was using her private server. The only even potential illegalities found in the entire ridiculously long investigation into Clinton's emails were mishandling of classified materials, which were mostly classified after the fact.

On the other hand, Ivanka's use of a private server, when combined with the fact that she has not provided those emails as directed by the law, constitutes a clear felony violation.

And the news media covered Hilary's emails more than all policy issues combined during the 2016 election. Every detail was belabored again and again. For something that wasn't even a crime.

Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has been renewed for two more seasons

This is just insane (HugeBillboard with Trump's face and the biblical quote "The Word became flesh - John 1:14") 

I honestly don't understand how any Christian who has even a passing familiarity with their own religion could support this. 

Rpg.net bans posts in support of Trump or his administration

On 10/23/2018 at 6:21 PM, archer said:

 

If it's any comfort, that's just a get-out-the-vote ploy the administration is doing to the Religious Right. It isn't as if the administration is going to actually do anything, any more than Bush Jr. was serious about his October surprise policy initiatives to motivate the Religious Right to get out and vote.

 

The Republican establishment, and now Trump, treat the Religious Right as if they were Charlie Brown and a football.

 

If they actually checked off anything on the agenda of the Religious Right, they don't have a clue as to how they'd motivate those people to show up to vote in the next election. That blind spot in their thinking might sound odd to Democrats who generally try to fulfill the agendas of their various constituencies then depend on loyalty in the next election cycle, but the Republican establishment hasn't ever figured out that paradigm.

 

I've bowed out of the political threads in general to avoid exploding in rage, but I checked in to see if this had come up here, since it's super relevant to me.

This is a "get out the vote" ploy, but it isn't just a "get out the vote" ploy. If you don't think that this administration will follow through on this, I believe that you are sadly mistaken. The DOJ has also filed a brief statement dating that employers should be able to discriminate based on gender identity[4]. The only reason trans folk haven't been kicked out of the military en masse is because the order is held up in court. Whether this administration hates us, or is just using us as a scapegoat, it doesn't matter. They want us gone.

On 10/23/2018 at 9:24 PM, Pattern Ghost said:

Text of Title IX

 

I have to wonder what the real world impact is. Title IX does apply to all sexes. It doesn't mention gender identity explicitly. It was passed in 1972, a time I presume the distinction between sex and gender wasn't well understood, or at least not commonly understood. (The latter is still true, unfortunately.)

 

IANAL, but maybe one can chime in: If a trans woman is defined as male by way of genetics under this new ruling, could they be barred from participating in activities for women? How would that differ from the current situation? Do transgendered people currently enjoy such protections (to participate in activities for their target sex*) under Title IX?

 

*By which I mean if someone has undergone steps to make their sex match their gender. There used to be a distinction of being a transgendered person versus a transsexual person, who has undergone what used to be called SRS, or sex reassignment surgery. I've been recently informed by my ultra-liberal cousin-in-law that "transsexual" is now not just a dated term, but an offensive one, so didn't want to use the term. (GLAAD's FAQ on word useage for the media still lists it as acceptable but dated, btw.) So, sorry for the awkward phrasing.

 

And by "activities," I mean things like sports teams, or club activities, sororities, dorm situations, etc., that are traditionally assigned to people based on sex.

 

First, a note, transgender is an adjective, not a verb, so it's "transgender person, not "transgendered person." Not a huge deal, but I wanted to point it out. [1]

Now the main question, real world effects:

Immediate legal effects are minimal. The administration can interpret Title IX however they want, but they can't change the actual law. For good or ill, it's up to the courts to interpret the law, and congress to change the law if they don't care for the interpretation.

That said, the administration (as noted above) can weigh in on any lawsuits brought under Title IX, and they can sway the courts. and given the new composition of the Supreme Court, I don't hold out a lot of hope for any sane decision on this topic there. There's worse the administration can do, but I'll come back to that.

The government is also messing with us on passports. There was a clear cut process for changing the gender marker on one's passport, and the admin says that the process hasn't changed, but we are fining our requests rejected for spurious reasons. I ended up with only a "provisional" passport, even though every piece of my documentation was exactly as requested. Initially they declined to give me even that and I had to push.

You ask if trans folk can participate in activities as individuals of their actual gender[2][3], as opposed to the gender they were assigned at birth. The answer there is a resounding "maybe." It's works differently in different places in the country. In some places, we're completely acknowledged as our actual gender. In others, they'll leave a trans girl to die in the hallways during an active shooter drill because they think a trans girl in the girls bathroom is scarier than a psycho with a gun. Various cases are winding through the courts to establish which of our rights the government will actually acknowledge. Over all, the trend has been going toward fully acknowledging our gender.

And that leads us to the worse thing the DOJ can do. Armed with this (mis)interpretation of Title IX, I expect them to start filing suits against the places that do treat us as our true gender, claiming that it is sex discrimination to allow "men" in woman only spaces. They wouldn't even have to initiate the suit. They could just join one of several in progress around the country.

Combined, these are a clear sign that our identities are under attack. If they invalidate my gender for federal purposes, will any of my ID even be valid? Since Real ID exists, probably not. Which makes it impossible for me to get a job. Or vote. Sure, I'd have a couple of choices. I could get a new ID with an "M" on it. I'm lucky enough to mostly pass. That would have me outing myself in every situation that I needed to present an ID. Or, I could go completely back in the closet. Walk around pretending to be a guy. 

Beyond all of the legal ramifications, though, there's another, more immediate effect. By further marginalizing and demonizing us, the administration is signaling to the people out there who already hate us that we do not enjoy the protection of the state. That we are fair game. It is virtually inevitable that this will ratchet up the rhetoric and even violence against us. And if they get there way, there will be bathroom bills across the country, requiring me to use the men's room. So I'd have to either not exist in public, risk my life using the wrong restroom, or break the law on a regular basis and end up in men's jail. How well do you think I'd fare there?.

In conclusion, this administration wants people like me gone. I get the impression they'd prefer us dead, but they'll settle for back in the closet.

Well, I'm not going back in the closet.

[1] Also, some people probably do find "transsexual" offensive, so it would be rude to use it them. I think most of us just find it archaic and annoying. A few of us (but not me) even still use it to describe ourselves. Language. Go figure.

[2] My paraphrase.(I don't want to put words in your mouth).

[3] I'm not going to go into it here, but the sex vs. gender distinction is not as clear as many would like. The science is pretty clear that the idea of two distinct sexes is convenient shorthand, but woefully over-simplified.

[4] This is actually a threat to way more than just us trans and other LGBTQfolks, but that's another discussion.[5]

[5] yes, that footnote was out of order. Sorry.[6]

[6] Not sorry.

11 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Whatever question Tom Hiddleston is asked by whomever, he always gives a serious, thoughtful, insightful answer. This is an actor who brings depth to his craft.

Tom Hiddleston: The choices we make have a lasting impact. Not just on ourselves, but on those around us. On our communities. Even on the world. When considering the question before us, we must take into account--

Clerk, interrupting: Sir, I just need to know whether you want paper or plastic.

I don't think I have anything further constructive to add to this conversation, so I'll bow out, having said my piece.

15 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

It is one thing to be in a minority and demand respect.

 

It is another to be in any group and demand it while refusing to give it.

 

I totally believe-- and have seen, as have we all-- people happily pretend that they didn't know this was extremely offensive to people who have no interest in participating in the ten-thousand-genders discussion.  The evidence is pretty much everywhere someone tries to use the flavor-of-the-month terms outside of their preferred sounding boards.  the vast majority of traditional males and traditional females-- and yes; despite all attempts to yell it out of existence, hetero-orientation is in terms of mathematics alone the norm; historically and in sheer volume it is the "traditional" norm. An ever-increasing population points to that.

 

Traditional people of any kind-- even if they are just traditionally goofballs, do not want or need new terms created specifically to bring them into a conversation they want no part of.  No one-- absolutely no one using this term does not know that.  It's rather like when I hear the young guys at the factory talk about "huntin' up some females."  They won't say women.  They won't say girls.  The won't say ladies.  The trendy thing now-- "females."  Don't use any word that might humanize them.  It makes the rest of the conversation a prolonged rape fantasy.  Frankly, I find that offensive.  I don't know who wouldn't.  But clearly the young men hunting females aren't bothered by it, nor are the "females" they manage to capture.

 

Not men.  Not women.  Not straight men and women.  Instead, "cis-gender."  Dehumanize them.  Make them simple specimens; use words that have no meaning to _them_.  That's certainly the best way to open a dialogue.  There is absolutely no way being dehumanized can possibly offend them.

Wow, there's a lot to unpack here, along with a lot of misunderstanding. CIs is not meant to be disrespectful. It's literally just the opposite of trans. Its shorthand for differentiating people whose gender matches the gender they were assigned at brith from those of us who weren't so lucky. The only people I have previously seen taking offense at the term cis are anti-trans activists, who almost always insist on no label other than "man" or "woman."  In most cases, the terms "man" and "woman" are fine. But when one is talking about situations where there is a distinction between trans people and people who aren't trans, it' handy to have a term for each.  That's really all it is to the vast majority of people who use the term. None of your other terms cover this. "Traditional" doesn't cover it. Trans folk have been around practically forever. We're not some new phenomenon under the sun. Straightness isn't helpful in this situation, since it is a descriptor of orientation, not gender identity. There are many straight trans people, and plenty of gay and bi ones, too.

Cis gender is no more meant to dehumanize than trans gender. 

33 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Does it bother me?  Nope.  Like most people, I ignore most of what I have no interest in.  It makes more sense than getting worked up about it.   Why am I even here in something I have no interest in either way?  A question was asked.(and it's always _that_ question: "how could you possibly be offended by a word we made up and decided to apply to you without regard to how you felt about it or what your preferences might be, even though we make such a hyper-dramatic deal about our own?"  This has to be the silliest question ever.  Why don't we ask an African American why the N-word bothers him.  It's the same principal.  But in all likelihood, you already knew that, too.)  Now it's answered.  Again.  Just like it is in who-knows-how-many-hundreds-ore-possibly-thousands of places on the internet.

 

It certainly seems to have bothered you enough to go on at length about it. Especially comparing cis to the "n" word. Seriously? The "n" word has always been a pejorative, meant to denigrate those it is used against (except by those blacks who have chosen to reclaim it for themselves). It is a word used by the oppressor against the oppressed. To compare a simple, non-pejorative,  technical term  like cis to the n word is frankly offensive. And all words are made up at some point (just ask Thor). When they get made up no one goes around and asks every person they might apply to if they have a problem with the new term. Language evolves. 

What is it about the term cis (or cisgender) itself that you find offensive? Is it just that there's a term for it at all? Or is there a term that you would prefer?  I'm really not out to offend anyone here.

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

Does it bother me?  Nope.  Like most people, I ignore most of what I have no interest in.  It makes more sense than getting worked up about it.   Why am I even here in something I have no interest in either way?  A question was asked.(and it's always _that_ question: "how could you possibly be offended by a word we made up and decided to apply to you without regard to how you felt about it or what your preferences might be, even though we make such a hyper-dramatic deal about our own?"  This has to be the silliest question ever.  Why don't we ask an African American why the N-word bothers him.  It's the same principal.  But in all likelihood, you already knew that, too.)  Now it's answered.  Again.  Just like it is in who-knows-how-many-hundreds-ore-possibly-thousands of places on the internet.

 

If I ever have cause to refer to your gender identity, personally, as distinct from trans men, I will use that term. In the general case, though, I will continue to use cis, or cisgender, for a couple of reasons.

1. It's generally considered disrespectful to refer to someone by what they are not, when there is a reasonable not negating term to use. (e.g., now that the term person of color is available, it's rude to refer to the grouping of people who aren't white as non-white people, rather than as people of color.) 

2. Nontrans isn't specific enough. Some agender people, and some intersex people consider themselves neither trans nor cis.

I have a similar question for you as I have for Duke above. Why is nontrans any better than cis? What is is about the term cis that you don't like? Assuming that you're white,  how is this different from being called white, if issues of race come up? If you're straight, would you prefer to be called non-gay when issues of orientation arise? These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm truly curious what it is about this term that offends you. I respect you, and do not wish to offend.

2 hours ago, Cassandra said:

What's wrong with just saying "Man"?   It seems like it's meant to be derogatory.

Maybe because the character wouldn't have as much of a problem with a trans man [1] teaching women's studies?

At least many trans men have some relevant life experience. 

2 hours ago, Cassandra said:

What is a man said that a woman shouldn't teach Military History?

That's very different. Military history is not about the male experience, It's about military history. Men have not been traditionally side-lined and their experiences ignored, so there is simply no valid comparison.

I second Cygnia's question.

10 hours ago, Vondy said:

Neither of these parties are interested in playing an infinite values-based game that benefits the American people.

You keep using that terminology and I, for one, have no idea what you mean by it.  You dismiss issues I and others bring up as mere policy issues, but the tax reforms you propose and your concerns about the voter rolls seem very much like just such policy issues.

Like Lord Liaden, I am very curious what Libertarian party positions you find attractive. Although they are one hundred percent on board with removing the income tax, the idea of raising the capital gains tax is a complete non-starter with them. Their platform calls for the elimination of all taxes, as a matter of fact. And the removal of all environmental regulations. And anti-monopoly laws. Any economic regulation at all, actually. Oh, and they want to remove all anti-discrimination laws. Is there something in there that you find attractive?

Are the Libertarian politicians playing that infinite values-based game you prize? Or is voting for them a protest? 

You accuse Democrats of just running against Trump, but I pointed out that they have real and meaningful policy proposals that they campaign on. Of course they attack Trump, too. He is the immediate symptom of the problem. He is actively tearing down the institutions that let the federal government functions, and enacting policies that are a real and present danger to huge number of people in this country, citizens and non-citizens alike, and to the whole world. To not fight the policies he's enacting, to not point out that he is betraying the interests of this country for his own enrichment and that of his cronies, would be irresponsible. But that isn't all they are doing. They lay out alternatives. They propose changes. Not all Democrats of course. Quite possibly not even most. But many. As I said, I think the Democrats are weak tea. They are so far to the right of me, it shocks me that I support them[1]. But they are fighting the party that is threatening the destruction of almost everything I value in America. So they get my support, for now. There's evidence that they aren't mostly bought by a foreign power, so they get my support, for now. I believe that a significant percentage of them have some integrity, even if I don't agree with them, so they get my support, for now.

[1] I support the DSA, who mostly ally with the Democrats right now. I hope that they grow and can eventually be a viable third party that pulls ht eDemocrats to the left.

2 hours ago, Vondy said:

 

The democrats also oppose everything I'm for at present.' They're just coming at it from the opposite direction. Voting for the dems to spite the republicans won't "put the fire out" in terms of my political values. The house will still be a roaring inferno of debt and government infringements.  Please take the following as a tongue-in-cheek expression of a very serious sentiment:

 

I'm a good old libertarian.

That's just what I am.

And for your progressive politics

I do not give a damn.

 

The same goes for populist social conservative politics.  I don't see the dems as a lesser evil, just a different one. I voted libertarian and I'm proud to have done so. And, odds are, I'll be doing it again. Now, if the Dems would run a modern day JFK, I'd vote for them. Indeed, my parents were "Reagan Democrats" and I used to refer to myself as a "Kennedy Republican." But he could never win the DNC nomination today. He's too far right of center.

As TrickstaPriest points out, if it's the debt you're worried about you should be voting for the Democrats. The Republicans love to talk about fiscal responsibility, but only when they aren't the ones in charge. When they are, all that goes out the window.

As for the infringement of rights, what rights are the ones you are concerned about? What vital rights do you see the Democrats wanting to infringe? 

Because from where I sit, the Republicans consistently try to restrict the rights of the people. Restricting the right to vote. Restricting the right to bodily autonomy. 

Republicans accuse Democrats of attacking the Freedom of Religion, but I don't see it.

What is it that you are for, that the Democrats are attacking?

2 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

Grrr. Just had to call someone out in a PM for a transphobic comment. Hopefully they'll take the hint and rephrase.

Thank you.

1 hour ago, Vondy said:

I decided to wait to respond to this and think about what to say. The reason is: you and I aren't having the same conversation. We also, very clearly, have different cultural and political priorities. I am not talking about policy goals. Those are trivial. I could not care less. I'm talking about something higher up the mountain than that. I'm talking about political values. 

 

When I said our traditional definitions of left and right were no longer useful because both parties were, above the finite policy level, pursuing mirrored (and selfish) tracks, you immediately started making partisan arguments and saying "well that guy is worse than my guy." So what? Again, I could not care less. We aren't even having the same conversation.

 

You are playing a finite game based on interests and short-term political gains and beating the other side rather than an infinite game based on values. That is also what both parties are doing, too. And, its bad game theory. A finite player who takes on an infinite player invariably loses. They run out of resources and quit the game. 

 

You want to debate me? Change your game. Become an infinite player. If you don't, pursuing this is a waste of my time. I don't care if the republicans started it or the democrats started it. I don't care if the republicans are really really mean while the democrats are merely really really petty. Who cares? Pointing the person who started it doesn't change the result. 

 

If the dems are so smart and moral and wise, why are they playing the same finite game? When you make your decisions based on finite interests you are not predictable and, from a cultural, diplomatic, economic, and military perspective that has serious negative consequences. Namely, you destroy the well of trust required to make cooperation possible. 

 

If you play the interests game friendliness and goodwill, respect and honor, go by the wayside. One party may win, but the entire nation loses in the long run because cooperation - E PLURBIUS UNUM - becomes impossible. How do we survive? We come together and cooperate. How do we prosper? We come together and cooperate. If the parties aren't doing that, why do you think taking a side will save you?

 

For me, America is not a finite game. It is not about the interests of individual parties and groups. It is not about specific pet policy decisions for special interest groups (or voting blocs). I will not play your game. For me, America is about life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue one's security and happiness. I know my political values. I stated them. You responded with partisan policy complaints. That is the root of the problem this nation is facing.

 

I have zero patience for either party. Neither represent me or my political values. Neither represent the values our nation was founded on. They represent a hungry and intrusive administrative state. Both are pursuing their own short-term finite partisan interests. When they play to win on that level the people lose. I want a party that is running on the values its for rather than the people and policies it is against.

 

The GOP ran on "Not Obama. Not Clinton." They won. Now the Dems are running on "Not Trump." Maybe they'll win. But, that is valueless finite drivel. And that is the problem with Washington. They have lost sight of our most basic and traditional of values. The ones found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The aspirational glue that forms the WE in "We The People." And, so has the media. And so have stridently partisan voters.

 

I choose to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American. Its infinite because its value based.

 

Democrats good! Republicans bad!
Republicans good! Democrats bad!

 

Utter tosh. Petty finite interest driven nonsense. Both are playing against the very values this nation was founded to aspire towards.  You can choose to play that game if you want. I won't be joining you.

I appreciate you making a thoughtful reply.

I still disagree with your premise.You speak of the Democrats running as not-Trump, but the democrats have a solid platform. They talk about that platform. And the media ignores it in favor of the spectacle of Trump. I'm sure there are some Democrats running as simply not-Trump, but what's your basis for asserting this categorically? 

Here is Texas, Beto O'Rourke is running against Ted Cruz for US Senator. He is visiting every county in Texas, and talking about issues in every one. Does he talk about how he opposes many of the policies of this administration? Of course he does. But he talks about what he would do differently. Is there something he should be doing differently?

How would you have the Democrats modify their behavior? What specifically are they doing that you object to? That you see the same as what the Republicans are doing? 

The rhetoric from the two sides does not even approach symmetrical.  If you disagree, please give examples of how you think they're both the same, rather than simply asserting that they are.

The right continually produces bizarre and vile conspiracy theories against the left. It may be the cranks who start them, but they get promoted by voices high in the Republican party. Show me the equivalent of pizzagate from the left.

And now I feel like you're going to say I'm once again saying "my guys[1] good, their guys bad" but I have no idea what you are proposing instead. You say they're the same. I see few similarities. 

If it's not the rhetoric, and it's not the policies, what is it that's the same between the parties? I conceded that they are both too beholden to corporate interests, but I don't feel like that's what you're talking about.

And frankly, some of us don't have the luxury of rising above mere policy disputes. Our lives are literally on the line.

This administration is striving to make it legal for anyone, including medical personnel, to refuse me service because of who I am. They believe that, no matter the oath a doctor took, it's okay for that doctor to let me bleed out, because he has "religious" objections to my existence.  They are trying to change rules so that I can be denied insurance coverage because of who I am. The Republicans are fighting attempts to remove "gay panic" as a defense for murder. It's not about them being "mean," it's about them taking concrete steps that are going to kill people like me, and, in the case of global warming, potentially everyone on the planet.

So please, tell me what the Democrats could do differently that would show that they aren't just laying the same finite game that you say both sides are playing.

[1] The democrats aren't my guys. They're a center-right party that is simply less objectionable than the other choice.

14 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

Democrats: If even one person was eligible to vote, but didn't because of undue costs or bureaucracy, that is unacceptable.

Republicans: If even one person was ineligible to vote, but did because of inadequate bureaucracy, that is unacceptable.

 

But these are not symmetrical positions. There is clear evidence that the republican policies are disenfranchising thousands, and likely tens of thousands, of minority voters. There is no evidence that the lack of those policies are causing tens, lets alone hundreds or thousands of cases of voter fraud.

16 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

I promise, Republicans do not want minorities out of voting. But Republicans don't see a problem with requiring ID, because who can't do that? Everyone they know has to get an ID, just to drive or go drinking. Democrats do know people who have a harder time getting ID, for a number of reasons. They know that kind of situation can happen to any kind of person, but also that it happens more among minorities.

  

You can promise that all you like, but their own actions and words say otherwise. The emails that have come out in the various lawsuits around the republican efforts document republicans specifically targeting black voters. The voter registration purges going on across the country in red states at least appear to be disproportionately affecting minority voters. The claims of voter fraud that get made to justify their policies are shown again and again to be baseless.  A bunch of republican voters may believe that voter fraud is a problem, and that their politicians are trying to fix it, but they are wrong.  

20 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

A Republican would point out what they've done in the name of religious freedom that Democrats don't like. Democrats don't think Religious freedom should let businesses discriminate against homosexuals, or refuse to pay for contraception for women.

 

I admit that Republicans have done things in the name of religious freedom. But as far as I can see, that's just lip service. They have done nothing in actual service of religious freedom. A corporation is not a person and has no religion, so can not have religious objections to anything. If the owners don't want to comply with law, they shouldn't be in business. 

And why should discriminating against homosexuals be any different than discriminating against any other group. There are still churches that preach against the mixing of the races. Should a business run by a member of that church be able to discriminate against blacks? Should a business be able to refuse to hire a Mormon, or a catholic, if it's run by a Southern Baptist? Because those make just as much sense.

31 minutes ago, Sociotard said:

A Republican would point out the problems Asians are having getting into elite universities because of the rules Democrats originally put in place to protect other kinds of minorities.

 

That's certainly something that's alleged, and should be looked into. But even if it is found to be true, that doesn't mean you scrap the whole idea of helping traditionally underrepresented minorities.

And in my original, I left out the biggest difference of all between the parties right now, at least in terms of long term effects.

The Democrats want to address global warming. 

The  Republicans claim that it doesn't exist, or that if it does, it has nothing to do with the actions of humanity, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Global warming is an existential threat to human civilization, and possibly human existence. By denying it, the Republicans are threatening the human race. I know it sounds melodramatic, but every day the Republicans stay in power, the more likely human civilization faces an early end. Okay, well, that may not be true. They may have already delayed action long enough that it's too late, and there's nothing we can do. So, there's that.

2 hours ago, Vondy said:

 

The thing is, I don't think our traditional definitions of "Right" and "Left" remain useful. "

The GOP has embraced the administrative state, blank check spending, and conservative social authoritarianism.

From a high-level view,, I don't see our present "right" as being meaningfully different than the radical progressive "left."

Sure, the specific policies and sensibilities differ, but both are all too willing to trample on liberty to legislate their morality while bankrupting us. 

Who do you include in "the radical progressive 'left'"? Especially, what "morality" do you see them trying to impose on others?

Because I don't see what passes for the left (i.e., the Democratic Party) in this country as being anywhere near to the GOP, in policies, tactics, or outcomes.

The Democrats want to make sure every eligible person can vote.

The republicans are doing their best to disenfranchise as many minorities as possible. 

The Democrats are trying to prevent discrimination, whether based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The GOP is trying to enshrine discrimination into the law.

The Democrats are trying to maintain a social safety net for all.

The GOP is trying to tear it down.

The Democrats are trying to make sure everyone has access to adequate healthcare.

The GOP is fighting this tooth and nail.

The Democrats are trying to secure our elections from interference by foreign entities.

The GOP is stopping them.

I agree that both parties are too beholden to corporate interests. I agree that many politicians in both parties are often more worried about their own reelection than their the good of their constituents, but the GOP is standing by while the current administration, at the direction of the President, sells this country off to the highest bidder. They pretend to investigate his possible connection to the interference with the 2016 elections, while keeping the Democrats from calling relevant witnesses. They take money from the NRA, which, has become essentially a front for funneling money from Russian oligarchs to political campaigns here. There is not an ounce of integrity left in the national Republican Party.

So, are the Democrats perfect? Not even close. But to group them as even close to the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not supportable.

I want to see him throw a polar bear at a bad guy

6 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

And maybe I'm weird (well, yes... I am) but this kind of thing is absolutely what I want to explore, and at least somewhat address in gaming, because it never gets addressed in comics. What happens when the FAA expands regulations to cover self-powered flight? What are the social implications and the protests of "Ground the Muties!" and "Freedom to Fly!" movements that spring up? This stuff doesn't have to be heavy handed, but can be in the background and surface when it becomes interesting for the PCs, or the PCs find it interesting to explore. Entire sessions and blue booking rounds would go into debating the "how it likely plays out" scenarios, usually based on some super-fight or action that took place... and it gives the players a real sense of the world, their place in it as PCs, and the effect the players have on shaping the world.

Love that stuff.

In the last supers campaign I ran (lo those many years ago) I had this. Super powers (and a bunch of other weirdness) were relatively new, and the government was trying to figure things out. A decent chunk of one session was spent with the group taking the FAA inspector on a test flight in their flying car [1] so she could license it. If the players hadn't been into it, it would have been a few minutes of the game, but they seemed to enjoy it, so we played the whole thing out.

They were also targeted by assassins[2] sent by De Boers because of their Gemerator 3000™[3]. It was a bit of a wacky game.

[1] It was a 1960s looking station wagon (wood paneling and all) that they had received as a boon from an extra dimensional entity when they requested a vehicle that could take them "anywhere on Earth". 

[2] One of the assassins made the mistake of trying to blow up the car.

[3] Another boon from the entity. All the boons they got were excuses to spend character points.

7 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Program Expenses = costs and non-charity related events (as in 'paying salaries, building offices, publicity, etc)

No, as I wrote above, program expenses consist of the money spent on the actual programs and services the charity exists to deliver. As BolofOfEarth pointed out, those other expenses are administrative expenses. Administrative expenses for the Clinton Foundation are 9.5%. You can get the data on just about any (maybe even all) U.S. charities from Charity Navigator. Here's the link for the Clinton Foundation's data. The idea that the Clinton Foundation was a scam was entirely campaign propaganda. It's a serious charity that does serious work.

If you want to continue this discussion, we should probably take it to the politics thread, or its own thread.

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

This is pretty far off topic, but if you look closely, most of the big "charity" organizations are keeping most of the money for "expenses" like their CEO's third vacation house.  Red Cross, for instance is terrible at this.  Some of them like the Clinton Foundation keep more than 80% of the money for themselves.  All non profits have costs and have to spend money to do their charity work but some are much better than others.

That general statement is true, especially for the Red Cross, but that's not accurate on the Clinton Foundation. 86.9% of its funds go to program expenses, that is, the actual programs and services it exists to deliver. That's pretty dang high as non-profits go.

8 minutes ago, Starlord said:

SC Justice Kennedy retiring

Well, that's that.

I honestly doubt our nation will survive the next few years. Not in any form that's worth calling America, anyway.

2 hours ago, Cancer said:

Thanks for having the confidence in us to open up in this community, though I admit I take such ... with caution.  I have been on the Internet since the early 1980s, and ... well, I am conditioned to retain skepticism about declarations of personal information, and I am not really comfortable with them.  That is at least partly a generational thing, partly from internet experiences very long ago, partly from long-cultivated self-protective habit.  The old-time NGDers here will recall a particular case of elaborate intentional deceit that went on for a while; that blew up very shortly before I joined up here.  I witnessed none of that as it occurred, but there were some folks here who were hurt by it.

 

In no way am I accusing you or anyone of a lack of candor, and please don't read hostility into this response.  Your opinions and contibutions are valued and respected as are anyone's, independent of an identity you share or choose not to share.

Understandable. I remember that incident and was thinking about it after I wrote this. So, for the record,

This is me two and a half years ago, right before I came out to myself:

And this is me three days ago:

I look a little different, but I think you can see me there in both.

And, just to be thorough, here's a video of me saying who I am.

(But also, look at my join date on my profile. I'd have to be playing the really long game on this)

So, recently on the Politics thread, I mentioned that I'm transgender. When I came out a couple of months ago, I changed my gender field on my profile to female, and put real pic of me as a profile pic. But I didn't post anything here. I'd considered doing it at the same time I was coming out on social media, but I didn't. I'm not sure why. I only brought it up in the politics thread because it was relevant to the argument I was making.

But this evening, when I was watching a show with a trans character, I started thinking about how important representation is to me, and to all people, really. I was thinking about the fact that, until someone says something otherwise (or their name indicates otherwise) on these boards (and on the internet in general) , I tend to imagine them as a straight white male. I think a lot of people do that. I mean, I don't think we even do it consciously, but I'm aware of the times when someone says something that reveals that they aren't a SWM, and I'm a little bit surprised. I don't like that. It bothered me when I identified as a straight white male, and it bothers me now.

And that's why I'm posting this. Representation is important. I want any other LGBTQ folks on the boards to know they're not alone. Also, if anyone's curious about what it's like to be trans, and to transition, I way overshare on my Tumblr, or feel free to ask me any (not too personal) questions here.

12 minutes ago, RDU Neil said:

 

 

Don't you understand male motivation? The only emotion we are allowed is anger, but the more nuanced of us can run the gamut from bitterness to rage. (Smug superiority is ok some cases.)

 

We are only allowed to cry if a famous sports personality dies, or our team loses a big game.

 

The death of friends, mentors or even loved ones are merely catalysts for our rage, which will ensure our victory!

 

Dang it, I never did get the hang of that back when I was pretending to be a guy. It's a wonder I lasted as long as I did.