薔薇語

Spoilers - duh. I just got back from Taipei where they had Suicide Squad in theaters. Given the very mixed reviews I decided to go watch the movie. I did know a couple spoilers, including the Diablo one. I genuinely tried to like the film - and I normally rate films better than most; I even liked BvS. But at the end of the day I thought it was a bad film. The acting for the most part was good and I like some of the music and even some individual scenes were quite well shot but as a whole it was a confusing, ill-paced mess from start to finish. Too many chefs in the kitchen: There were far too many characters in this movie. The avengers worked so well because they didn't really need to explain the background and motivations of everyone in a single movie. Had the Suicide squad taken a bit to either set up the characters in other movies (not really possible) or cut the squad in half it would have been better. Examples of this were with Captain Boomerang and Katana. I thought both were good but utterly useless characters. The only plot driving point the Captain was in is when he got the other guy killed. That could have easily been accomplished by HQ. Katana had no reason at all to be there. I thought it would be because of her sword but even then it wasn't. The guy they killed off needed an intro. The moment he came on screen we all knew he would die quickly and it had no impact. It was a useless death. Why were there two badguys? One would have been sufficient and cut out several minutes of useless footage. Its a marathon, not a sprint: The pacing in here is way off. There are essentially four bricks in this movie with their own time slots and pacing independent of everything: Suicide Squad Proper's formation - Establishment of Waller and Enchantress - The City Rescue - Post Bar fight. Each one has its own pacing, which is okay, but then radically splits and sprints through the next section. Scott at Nerdsync had a brilliant idea to solve this issue: remove the whole Waller and Enchantress section. Don't give Enchantress a background nor explain that she was part of the team (its not like anyone on the team knew her anyway). Rather have the reveal when Deadshot discovers the TopSecret file. This could have saved you lots of time, made the idiotic plot setup more bearable by not focusing on it, and pushed a lot of intense character development for the bar scene, thus making it actually valuable and not the almost pointless lull it is. It might have even freed up enough time to have some kind of establishing training montage for the crew and not a random "here's the crew in the desert and now here's the crew in a Post-Apoc city jump". Characters: Too many characters were too flat. The only ones that got any depth were Deadshot, HQ, and Diablo. Even Flag, who should have had a major character arch, was almost exactly the same from start to finish. All that changed is that he decided to not ruthlessly behead some folks at the end. Woohoo?! This I think is an issue mostly from the number of characters and pacing. They could have focused far more on development if they weren't so worried about their stupid plot device. And the actors showed the ability to give dynamic roll so it is most certainly an error on the director's side. Jered Leto - This Joker (in both senses) was used in much the same way some female characters are used in the medium: purely as character set up for someone else. He only existed to explain HQ and give her a full arc. He was fully disposable - much like the acting job Leto gave. I might actually like the campy TV version more and I hated that one. He keeps saying that there was more footage of him - well it would seem the director made at least one good choice in the edit of this movie. Waller - I hate this character. I was always a reluctant fan of her in the shows, though. She was trying to fulfill a vital roll as a counter-balance to the League or such. While cold, she was driven. This one just seems to be a power hungry bureaucrat who enjoys a bit of torture and murder. Had the scene where she cold bloodedly murder her staff not happened I might have stayed on the fence about her - but once that happened I wanted her to die. I hope she never come back up (which I know is not a reasonable wish). The Waller I thought I knew wasn't one to choose murdering innocent folks lightly. The acting for her was okay - I don't think it was the great performance others are claiming. And certainly isn't worthy more praise than Smith or Robbie or even Croc's. All in all, this was a waste of money to go see. I do not look forward to anything with Leto and I am really hoping he doesn't drag down BatFlec. Watch it when it comes to a streaming service near you or not at all. Soar.

Soar.

There are a couple off color words but otherwise is safe for work. Soar.

"3. Attacking of other forum members is subject to immediate banning." Soar.

Yes, yes he has. He has also walked back from those statements and then run back to them and so on and so forth. The man is about as reliable on those points as a teenage girl is on decided what outfit to wear. Ultimately he has limited authority to make changes here. The Congress ultimately sets most of our immigration policies. Strict bans would also likely not survive Supreme Court muster. Next, it is a ban without teeth since there is essentially no way to create a viable litmus test. Oh, so you mean like how they were for the last 15 years under President Bush and president Obama? We are not doing a particularly good job at not engaging in some shady (read: racist) surveillance practices. But that is a far cry from Hitler. And partisan hyperbole aside, neither President Bush nor President Obama were our new Hitler. Here is a quote I haven't heard before (I don't listen much to Gov. Christie). But how is this different than the routine rotation of folks between presidencies? It was actually quite unusual that President Obama kept so many of President Bush's appointments in place. Every time we talk about how partisan civil departments become post election. Republicans complain how the current justice department wouldn't dare go after Democratic officers. And vice versa under President Bush. Civil Servants and Judges also have protections in place against rampant abuse (judges only get kicked out if Congress says so and civil servants can sue). Yeah, he has had quite a bit of hatred spew from his mouth. We can agree quite a bit on this one point, Simon. Perhaps this is a good reason for you and I to absolutely never vote for such a hate-filled man. But that doesn't mean I am going to vote for Sec. Clinton. No, he hasn't. He walks a fine line on such things but he has actually stated "rule it out...". http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/trump-rules-out-us-muslim-internment-camps.html You know what I would like to do more than rely on "opposition" to prevent him from doing such things? Just have a system in place that reigns in Presidential powers. That is obviously not going to happen under either Sec. Clinton or Trump. Soar.

You know, Simon, we can disagree without essentially calling each other stupid. Soar.

Ultimately calling Trump our Hitler is like calling Senator Obama our Stalin or Mao. I get the feelings but think they are exaggerations. Trump is not a nice man and his values are at odds with a lot of other republicans. That does not mean he will start up modern interment camps. Such conclusions require an extreme distrust of the system that that I would think only lay in the fervent Trump, Sen. Bernie, and third party base. Soar.

Really, though? I get that you are sincere in your heavy dislike of Trump. I get your fears for what such a presidency would mean. But is it really that different? Not just the people running but in the rhetoric surrounding them and the people pushing for votes. To me this seems all too familiar with 4, 8, and 12 years ago. Each of the two main sides have taken to demonizing each other; exclaiming how the US would be set off to a terrible place if the other one won. If Gov. Romney won, Obamacare would be finished and countless millions would die. If President Obama won again, it would spell the end to the second amendment and a possible heralding of invasive government control (actually that last part isn't that far off given our intel agencies). Senator Obama was a radical leftist that would nationalize the banks and destroy free enterprise. Senator McCain would leave millions on the cold streets and bring us to the brink of WWIII; a fate we somehow just barely avoided despite re-electing President Bush. Every cycle brings out new versions of the same dire rhetoric. Ultimately the two main sides need to earn our votes. Their inability to do so is not the fault of third parties. Gov. Johnson nor Dr. Stein get a say in the leadership or marketing of the Dems nor Repubs. When one's supermarket fails blaming the market down the street for being too competitive isn't a solution - it's part of the problem. Soar.

I am curious what kind of one shot you want to run in a Rapture-esc environment. Most of your design choices in terms of denizens, plots, and builds will revolve a lot around defining simply what you want to get out of the session. Here are a few examples of things you could do with a "Rapture Themed" session: 1 - Straight Horror In this incarnation of the Rapture theme, the PCs are desperate folks trying to flee their new found prison. While junkies and mob bosses are bad even in well tended modern cities, the rampant decay of Rapture and Plasmid fueled mania would easily be an almost impossible challenge. Maybe the PCs are this games version of "the little sisters" and they are trying to escape before being harvested. In this scenario, keep the PCs as generally human. The Plasmid Junkies could be one trick ponies built on a couple dozen points. Play up the dark "you never know what is beyond the next turn" atmosphere. 2 - Zombie-esc Horror In this version of the Horror story, the PCs are not all together overpowered by any single Plasmid user. Maybe they could even use some plasmids themselves. But the torrent of desperate folks looking for their fix will easily become too much for the PCs if they don't manage to flee. The more they use their powers, the more the others will notice them and come clamoring for a fix. 3 - Redeemers The adventures have a goal (either because of personal choice or because they were sent on a mission) to re-establish control over the city. Perhaps some gang bosses or dominant plasmid user has caught the serious ire of others. Maybe it is just that there are still helpless civilians in need of rescue. Regardless, the PC are their to save lives / restore order. This isn't about them running. This is about the fight. But they are behind enemy lines and unsure of what they will face. Maybe they don't even know what plasmids are before encountering them. In this version the PCs would need to be built on a more Heroic level. Either they have equipment to fight Plasmid users or can tap into the plasmids themselves. 4 - Treasure Hunters There is something down there! And damnit, we need to get it! What are the PCs looking for and will they even recognize it when they find it? Who knows. But that is why these PCs are there in Rapture. While a bit un-prepared at first, they quickly adapt to their situation and try to retrieve their target and skedaddle in one piece. Maybe along the way they meet a few sympathetic characters and are forced with the hard choice: save the city or complete the mission. Those are just 4 set-ups I could think of off hand quickly. There are obviously more. But each one requires different kinds of write ups for the PCs, the equipment, and the world as a whole in terms of NPCharacter depth. Soar.

Or one did happen and they don't want to bring it up. Or maybe their lizard overlords are just rubbish with press releases. Or maybe their server is in A51 and can't access it now. Can we return to non conspiracy theory time? Soar.

Or it could be that there is little worry about the RNC or it could, you know, be better protected. Soar.

The new primary rules in California have caused an interesting turn-about in that fewer Californians are likely to be voting for Senate this year than before. The rules, for those who are unaware, were changed to make all primary participants join together and the top two of the total are the only ones allowed on the ballot. This means that Republicans have an extremely low chance of ever running for national Senate and all third parties are completely out. California was quite hard to gain access to before, now it is cementing its reputation.* The new rule was created based on a belief that it would push people to the center on political issues - perhaps a good intention for all those are worth. But realistically it means that a single political party can avoid any party disunity and focus on joint attacks against second party participants. Republicans will no longer have a Primary as they can't risk splitting the vote at all. It also means that the Dems in California get to treat the actual election as a Primary without any concern about losing popularity before facing off against a Republican, Libertarian, Green, or other such opponent because they have essentially been banned. *Perhaps having a Trust-Buster would be good again. ^^ Edit: A Reason Article. Soar.

Certainly heavier than a duck. But I am not so sure about a tur-du-kin. Soar.

I don't think there are any. So feel free. ^^ That said, I am actually surprised by that number. Perhaps the numbers I was hearing some months ago were based on single speeches rather than total aggregate, but I thought the numbers were significantly less (ie, less honest). Soar.

I wouldn't want to put President Wilson in my top 10. Extreme anti-Semitic demagogue who jailed reporters and political dissidents. Even by the standards of his time he was not a nice person. President Ike had some flaws but I could see him in my top ten. Same for my home state President, President Truman. Washington and Jefferson would be must haves. As I recall Monroe was a pretty admirable chap. While I disagree with him on a lot of issues, I think President Clinton generally did a good job. So, that gives me 6 to start with. Soar.

So, there was a big walkout from the DNConvention by Senator Sander's supporters. Soar.

Lets vote for someone who isn't connected to any conspiracy - thus not Trump or Sec. Clinton. Lets vote Gov Gary Johnson! Soar.

12 years late. ^^ Tonie Nathan was back in 72. Soar.

Did you know that the Libertarians have had three women run as VP. The very first one, Tonie Nathan, was also our very first VP pick for the party. So, maybe we could be wondering what took everyone so long. ^-^ Soar Yes, I know VP is not quite the same as Pres but darn close!

Name calling is hardly a civil act to engage in but hardly one unheard of in American politics in general and Democratic politics in particular. A Republican candidate with a similar record to the Secretary would most certainly be called "corrupt, dishonest, and untrustworthy". When it comes to the "egregious online behavior of some Bernie Bros", my understanding is that most of that is simply hearsay at best and fabricated lies by the the Clinton Campaign or surrogates thereof. The Wiki-leaks scandal doesn't work to quell concerns about duplicitous actions. Secretary Clinton / her surrogates are far too fond of painting any opponents, including Senator Sanders himself, as sexist. Saying women who vote against Hillary have "a special place in hell", and accusing young female Senator Sanders' supporters of simply being "boy crazy". After a year of being told you have no hope of winning, accused of sexism, having your political motivations reduced to mere sexual urges, and facing an establishment in cahoots with your political opponent and then being told to shut up and take one for the team, you will probably be rubbed a bit raw. If the vote had gone the other way, I don't see it being even remotely the same. Secretary Clinton and her supporters were not being called anti-Semitic, accused of having MILF fantasies, or other such absurdities. I can completely understand why a Supporter of the Senator would care very little about the Senator's attempts to unify with a group that has been name calling an entire movement for a year. More power to them. Soar.

So it would seem the mere mention of the nominee or her running mate inspires widespread booing. That big blue tent seems to be getting smaller and smaller. Soar.

I am not watching it live, Mega. Was it when she endorsed Sec. Clinton? If so, I would imagine the boos were more directed at what seems to be an unconscionable compromise to the other side by Senator Sanders' supporters. Remember back when we used to make fun of Tea Party Republicans and how they treated "compromise" as a bad word. Well, if it is good for the republican goose, it would seem to be good for the Democratic gander. Soar.

The Washington Post has an article about Rep. Wasserman Schultz being outed from the DNC. A key couple paragraphs at the front: "[T]he Florida congresswoman did not go quietly or without a fight. It took pressure from the White House – including a phone call with President Obama – to get her to finally see the writing on the wall.Two reliable sources say Wasserman Schultz was trying to make top aides take the fall, rather than take personal responsibility. Until the end, she struggled to understand what a lightning rod she’s become. “There was a lot of drama,” a Democratic member of Congress involved in the discussions leading up to her resignation told Philip Rucker. “She made this as painful as she could. She did not want to go. ... She wasn’t going to resign until the president called her. She put a lot of people through hell.” Emphasis added by me. Soar.

Indeed. Such was essentially my point to my Senator Sanders supporter friend on FB. Soar.

It would seem a group of Senator Sanders supporters are passing around petition to DNC delegates to get them to switch votes for Senator Sanders. http://switchtobernie.com/ The list of grievances / reasons to switch they state are: A savy Trump or Anti-Sec.Hillary campaigner would just make a few targeted adds citing this level of disagreement in the Democratic party. Even if it doesn't pull people to Trump, it is likely to drain people from Sec. Clinton. Soar.