unclevlad

He said WRIST watch. You'd need to be Gargantuan, possibly Colossal to wear that. And need the STR...the case is 18k gold, so it'd be HEAVY! (Yeah, it's one of those "if you need to ask the price, you can't afford it" watches.)

Due to DeSantis' crusade against them, Disney pulled the plug on a planned shift of some people from California to Florida. It was a billion dollar project and would've led to 2000 jobs for Florida. Texas...my gosh, they want anarchy. From the article: I wrote "they want anarchy"...and actually that's when a bell rang. Because I think that's the point. They want to eliminate government involvement. The state won't be able to handle the local issues, so the net impact will be NO governance. Can't reduce any more than that. I also have to expect that this is going to let Texas businesses skate on LOTS and LOTS of laws...and I don't trust any large businesses, anywhere. One can argue the morality of this bill, versus the various other suppressive measures, but IMO, this one is a dozen steps beyond anything else anyone's enacted this century, in terms of sheer, bullheaded STUPIDITY, and probably a few steps beyond everything else in terms of disenfranchisement...which of course is the goal.

I'm hearing far too much complication for the sake of very little gain. You'd have a totally different system. The roll's based on Target Number OR LESS, so how would adding dice even work? What's the target number, how does a characteristic play into it? If the skill check stays the same and you have to make multiple checks, that slows play down tremendously. I've played Storyteller, Shadowrun, and some L5R with exploding dice and Roll X, Keep Y. I'm not entirely convinced any of them are an *improvement*...and all of them use notably different underpinnings. Some of em might even make really good supers systems, if you strip out the genre stuff and use the supers environment of your choice. (Golden Age, SIlver Age, more modern comic, urban fantasy generally, or a specific supers universe from a book series, as most have their quirks.) But I don't want to cobble an approach from any of them, into a structure that wasn't intended to use it.

You're just forcing me to throw points away to remain even. If you want to do this? Make it a Physical Complication. Characters NEED to make PER rolls, if someone wants that Blithering Idiot, well, it's a shtick that gets REALLY old, REALLY fast...most of the time it's not so much a point of characterization, but a power trip for the player, forcing the party to cater to him. But if it's really legit, fine...take it as a complication that gives a couple extra points to that character, rather than force most players to spend points just to get back to even. Or, allow Bad Vision: -1 to Normal Sight PER. -1 point. Or whatever. Figure what senses you want it to apply to, then figure out the total cost if you were giving +1...and that's the cost for -1. Also: I'd almost never allow this for touch or taste, and probably rarely for smell. How often do those PER rolls crop up? It's way too likely that this is pure min-maxing. Be VERY, VERY careful of how you process fictional material. Who says they're really all that smart? Is it a failure to perceive, or a failure to interpret...those aren't necessarily the same, and I think, far more often, it's the latter. If you want academic-smart, buy less of a baseline INT and something like It's also plot device, and almost always, IMO, grossly exaggerated. If you want good INT skills but not-so-good PER, then buy a more moderate INT, and +1 with all INT skills. Those levels do NOT apply to PER. This can, sometimes, be a pain...because those levels also don't apply to background skills. But, if that's the case, then use the "Inhibited Perception" notion from above.

I dunno, I think it'd be quite the attention getter if DraftKings and FanDuel logo teams met each other......

....................................................................... You're not secretly Death Tribble, are you?

I'm diabetic, and you want me to watch a video about pasta?????????????????????????? HOW COULD YOU??? That's cruel and inhuman punishment! (The one thing I miss MOST...is good pasta. The carb load is just too high, tho, and something like a pound of thin spaghetti has multiple batches...so it's not just one time, like, say, grabbing a pizza.)

The distinction may devolve to "elements" vs. "overall package." In general, it's harder to create an "overall package" on a small project. Cap has a shield. You can't protect "shields." It's red, white, and blue. Still a generic element. You can copyright the total package: round shield, red / white / red outer rings, blue inner circle with a star bullseye. Probably the only part of Superman's costume that can be copyrighted, is the highly distinct logo...even then, I'm not sure what would be allowed as generic. A blue S, on a white, square background, where the S is, oh, let's say the capital S from German Black Letter? Probably wouldn't infringe, especially if it wasn't located center-chest. In the world of watches, there are certain extremely well known (to watch people) designs and looks. Then there's copycats, who re-use the same elements. MOST of the time...that's legal, assuming there's no attempt to present my copy as your (many times more expensive, typically) original. One iconic, EXTREMELY expensive watch has --a recti-elliptical case...kind of a rectangle but with elliptically rounded corners. --a horizontal deck-style dial...raised strip, flat strip, raised strip, flat strip,.... but I don't think that's copyrightable...and I've seen plenty like it to suggest, no, it's not. The elements are a bit too generic. There aren't *that* many different ways to provide visual interest on a watch dial, or to add some character to the case shape. OTOH, I think Bell & Ross MAY have a copyright for their signature style: the dial opening is round, but the case itself is square, specifically invoking the look of an old-time instrument. It's that part that may make it non-generic. IP law is...bizarre. Especially at the stratospheric levels...the geeks among us, at least of a certain age, likely remember Apple vs. Microsoft, and Apple vs. Motorola...look and feel suits related to MacOS vs. Windows and iOS vs. Android. Huge, ugly, and IIRC, ultimately worthy of a Macbeth Award. Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Because that was pretty much the end result...nothing. Found this site that's worth a quick read: https://www.abounaja.com/blogs/copyright-infringement-cases Some of these cases turn on some...pretty narrow issues.

I see where CRT's coming from...and Hermit. For Hermit: copyright has become largely a tool ONLY for the corporations to protect their profit streams. The cost is not even close to worth the benefit for a small player. I know of one case...a game that never had market share, but got caught up, for reasons too convoluted to examine here, in copyright issues. Simply keeping a copyright lawyer on retainer cost him thousands per month. Another case...this one is suspicion. Dave Mottram is an illustrator, among other things. His caffeinated owls drawings are awesome...LOVE them. Those are his. He sold mugs and t-shirts through Society6...one of the many such print-on-demand storefronts...but there've been massive, generally TERRIBLE, copies made...so he doesn't sell them any more. I *speculate* it's due to copyright problems...he got usurped. To CRT's point: the growing concern over music copyrights. Ed Sheeran *won* his...by asserting what the Gaye estate tried to assert rights over, was just "common elements." And this doesn't even begin to discuss the impact of AI. So...on smaller more atomic stuff like individual images, or even possibly short stories? Copyright will become so unenforceable as to be dead in practice. On novels, sound tracks, or movies, it will last longer. It may collapse eventually...if you can't copyright any of the elements, it becomes harder and harder to copyright the combination. Not impossible...just harder. Also, when you toss out something like that on an internet channel, there's a pretty good chance it wouldn't be protected anyway. https://fairuse.stanford.edu/2003/09/09/copyright_protection_for_short/#:~:text=slogans%2C and other short phrases,not subject to copyright protection.

The distinction is the order of operations defined by the system. The limitation is applied first, THEN the reduction for the skill enhancer. So you're getting a 3 point skill, at -1/4, so --> 2. Then -1 for the enhancer. This would also apply to the levels...if you buy 5 levels, the standard cost is 8 but that drops to 5 with Unified. The hokey aspect is simply a problem with integer math, and it's why you should RARELY put limitations on skills...much less Unified. Re-read what Unified really means.

I agree that the doubling rule creates the obvious optimal points. Not sure if it's worth worrying about, tho; the whole system is nothing but optimal points that we use all the time. For END, for skill rolls, sometimes for costs (the size of an AoE, the number of charges, etc.) It's DARN sure not worth caring about anything that far back because 6E is too different from 1E and 2E. Yeah, the notional mechanics are the same, but the devil's in the details, and they're completely separate in too many areas. Removing STR from an HKA simply violates logic. The power behind the sword doesn't matter at all? That makes no sense. I'm not saying HKAs don't have problems; I'm saying this is the wrong direction to fix them. And if you're suggesting removing STR adds...does this apply to HAs? Or just HKAs? Because those are the only powers where it applies; it sounds like we're largely in agreement that STR Adds is gonna be a bad idea for ranged attacks. At the risk of attacking a straw man, not applying STR to HAs is awful, IMO, because I hate the exponential growth on lifting STR, and I darn sure don't want to compel melee types into martial arts builds if being able to lift a tank isn't in concept. The problem with HKA is that killing damage is a bad fit to the rest of the system, IMO, in that a 12d6 Blast is in NO way comparable, as a threat, to 4d6 killing. Get clobbered by a couple higher-damage Blasts, maybe you get knocked out. Get hit by a couple higher-damage KAs, you're DYING if you don't have enough resistant defense. A 4d6 KA will do 18+ BODY 1 time in 6. If an underlying premise of the system is to embody comics principles, and if one of those principles is "characters don't die, they just get beat up heavily"...then something this lethal is a BAD idea. Dropping the STUN multiplier so sharply, from 5E to 6E, shows that 5E KAs were clearly too effective; there was too much BODY and too much chance of overwhelming STUN. What 6E has is lesser, but still a problem: too much BODY damage, because you can't treat the average. There are too few dice, so the variance is simply far too high.

For an HA/HKA? It is prorated, per 6E2 100-101. For STR being added to a Blast? It'd be prorated for something like AP...no change there. If we're talking Can Apply STR to a Blast...that's an advantage that doesn't change the underlying DCs, so by my understanding of the rules, additional damage doesn't get prorated. If you both increase the underlying cost of the Blast, AND prorate STR as well...it gets too expensive, in most cases. It's the same cost as TK: 7.5 points per DC. Limiting the amount of STR you can add, seems reasonably workable mechanically, but the net impact is unbalanced. Extra damage in melee...yeah, it's to be expected. It's very open-ended. Extra damage for a ranged attack? It's not more expensive...but the only route by RAW is through ranged martial maneuvers and ranged DCs. They explicitly note...HSMA page 90...extra DCs are relatively rare. Yeah, that and a five-spot will get you a latte. It's much too passive a statement, but the point is...if you want power in your Blast, buy the dice in the Blast. And that's what Can Allow STR breaks completely. It's not *as bad* as Ranged MA DCs, but one thing it does do is likely allow you to *sharply* reduce your MP pool size or VPP control size...and make up for it with STR. Especially if you combine Can Allow STR with a couple ranged DCs and maneuvers. Basic Shot is +2 DCs and +2 Range; Quick Shot is +2 DCs and +1 OCV. You're looking at being able to buy a rather inexpensive Blast. What it'd mean...a mild investment in STR, like 30, would let you build a ranged attacker for minimally more than a melee attacker. 30 STR, 1/2 END; +4d6 HA; Martial Strike, Block, and Counterstrike...a nice simple trio. 12 points total. Not saying it's the cheapest, it's just a straightforward combo. 37, 16, and 12...65 points. 25 STR; 5d6 Blast, Can Apply STR, Reduced END; Quick Shot, Trip, and Ranged Disarm, so the package is effectively the same, 12 points and +2 DCs. 25, 44, and 12...81 points. 16 points isn't nothing, but if for some reason you *want* a 30 STR and 12d6 blasts...it's a lot cheaper than a 10d6 Blast, 1/2 END, and the extra damage from martial maneuvers. And we can't ignore the difference between 44 and 62 points in terms of MP size or VPP allocation. A core point: the more you can split things up, the easier it is to abuse the rules...and the more draconian it becomes to try to prevent such abuses.

To echo Dr. Mid-Nite to a degree, I'm not surprised either. To me, this feels like a direct consequence, even corollary to, the increasing political polarization. From the article: That smacks of polar contraction, as a) the doubters leave, and b) the remaining group reaches out less and less to other groups. When all believe the same things, there is no division. When all listen to one viewpoint, there is no division. Just polar contraction. Elsewhere, just in from NYT: Texas legislature passes a bill banning puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors. Abbott hasn't signed it, yet...but it's gonna happen as soon as the paperwork is complete. Sad, but totally expected.

I don't live in the Phoenix area, so I have no reason to feel any pain if they move. I suspect residents are generally taking a more jaundiced eye, tho, WRT any such agreements. There's a growing perception that...no matter how good the agreement might look like, the overwhelming benefit is to the team, and the risk is on the taxpayers. Another angle is if sports has become oversaturated and overpriced...and hockey in a fringe market would tend to be a place where we see it. There's a plausible connection between the Broncos selling for, what, $4.5B, and the Commanders for $6B...and fan pushback, across ALL sports. Even in hockey...the median total cap is $73M. Obviously, this doesn't hold a candle to the NFL, NBA, or MLB...but it's still a LOT of money, and means even hockey salaries are something almost none of us can aspire to. Now toss in the Chargers abandoning their base. The Raiders moving 3 times in 40 years...that might sound like it's infrequent, but with these mega-stadium deals, the liabilities related to them extend out decades. Or perhaps another way to put things....the perception that there is no such thing as loyalty in sports. There's far too many cases of this. Players have no loyalty to teams. Teams have shown they have no cities. It's all about chasing the megabuck, and there's only one way to do this...exploit the fans. Directly or indirectly...exploit the fans. So why should fans have loyalty to the teams? Why should non-fans support them, because they're going to be paying for it too? Tampa: everyone hates the Trop, every day, in every way. But they can't get an agreement to fund a new place. Oakland: Same. Vegas: we'll see whether they'll support the new stadium for the Raiders or not. That said: I believe they've pushed hard enough to force the team to reduce taxpayer costs. DC: ehhh, this is arguably more complex, as it's harder to say whether it's a reluctance among the fans, or Snyder demanding too much, or...aother plausible argument is, WHERE? And at what cost? That entire area, DC and the bedroom cities, is pretty darn saturated. So Phoenix isn't that surprising. There's also little doubt in my mind that hockey's likely a very distant fourth, FAR behind the Cards, Suns and D'backs. And, whether the metro area is really capable of supporting 4 teams.

Because STR cannot be applied at a distance. You're giving it the increased functionality. Your example...you're getting a 12 DC attack for 90 points, and thus 9 END per. That is expensive. It's the cost of TK...and illustrates why the book includes the TK trick of buying a Blast using TK as the SFX, because the cost is just too high with straight TK. I'd rather keep it as an advantage on STR as that feels better to me. If it's built into the Blast, with a +1/2 advantage for Can Apply STR...how does STR apply? +1 DC per 5 STR? Then you buy a 3d6 Blast with Can Apply STR, and a 45 STR. 67 points. Same trick with the MP slots, if you like. They're only 2 points, cuz the blast is only 22. That's just too cheap. Your argument about the HKAs holds even more directly. OTOH, if the DCs from STR have to be counted as per a +1/2 advantage...the 9 DCs from 45 STR --> 6 DCs, and you've got a net 9 DC Blast...but it's costing 67. I can just buy the Blast at 9d6. A middle ground might be to borrow the 5E HA rule. Can Apply STR is a +1/2 advantage on Blast. It lets you add DCs from STR to the Blast, up to a maximum of the number of DCs in the Blast. (So a 4d6 AVAD, an 8 DC attack, can incorporate up to 40 STR.) This eliminates the abuse above...your 3d6 Can Apply STR maxes at 6d6. If you want a 12 DC Blast in this approach, you need a 6d6 Blast, so that's now 45 points. In this approach, the net effect is that 4 DCs...2 from Blast with Can Apply STR, and 2 from STR...costs 25 points. The advantage for the player? The STR becomes a separate power base. The 6d6 Blast with Can Apply STR is only 45 points, so your MP or VPP is smaller. On first glance, this might be OK. Get more complex, and I suspect it breaks down because of the core rules. Advantage stacking is cheap if you can keep the base cost down. 3d6, AVAD vs. Power Def, Can Apply STR, is 6 DCs for 37 points. I can now add 30 STR to take this to 12 DCs and 67 points of effect. I'm just seeing more balance problems in allowing STR to be applied to ranged damage. It also makes STR too versatile...the more ways you can combine things, the greater the chance that some of them will be abusive or broken. That's already a major issue.

Yeah, many of the studio talking heads expected this. I think particularly in Philly, where people probably still remember that perhaps the most dominating player ever, Wilt, never won a title while he was there. Never mind that while Embiid is also a dominating player...I think it's hard to build a team around him. Harden was a mistake; I think he'll be gone. But Embiid doesn't fit into a role...low post, mid post, high post? Pick something and stay with it more. Part of that is Toxic Three Syndrome. Some of it may well be echoes still reverberating from the abject disaster of Ben Simmons. And, sure, some of this might be projecting off Embiid's demeanor...but it's not very positive. If it's a player's league, then the tone set by your stars, matters. His doesn't appear to be a good one.

You could, but again, I'd rather eliminate killing dice altogether and use an advantage, as I noted, that keeps normal BODY determination. I might actually allow a +1/2 Advantage to STR to let it be applied to an appropriate attack power...but NOT as an underpinning for TK. Note that you'd better take that as a Naked Advantage...or you're paying for the END on ALL applications of STR. A naked advantage is a special power...so can't be put into a framework. Note that I am NOT!!! considering it as an advantage on, say, Blast. That's putting the scaling on the wrong side, when it's executed as an advantage. Note that my "attack power costs" are analogous to the following: 3 points: blast, no range 4 points: HA, but no AVADs 5 points: MA DCs and HAs with AVADs 5 points: Blast 7 points gives the Blast where you're allowed to add STR...and if that one doesn't work out? That's fine, it was tossed out there. I might say 6 points per die, AND you need to buy "STR at range." Yeah, I really don't have a problem making this very expensive, to try to cut down the abuse potential. While many SFX wouldn't fit...for your STR to be applied to the target, the attack has to be something that carries the STR along the way. An ice blast would fit; a fire blast wouldn't. I also wouldn't apply it to TK because TK has aspects of both Indirect and AoE applicability that "STR at range" doesn't. Also note that you can get "STR at range" cheap...with Stretching. Your HA carries over. Your martial maneuvers carry over. You even get No Range Mods, within the limits of your Stretching. Adding EGO to your mental powers...I could see that. Same condition...+1/2 advantage to your EGO. Mental Attack still needs 2 DCs to get +1 die. I'd have to think about it. INT...it wouldn't increase the dice. A better crafted image has a better PER roll adjustment, but this is already built in. DEX...a precise shot doesn't increase damage, it decreases targeting penalties to hit those spots. If you're not using hit locations, which I loathe with a passion? Welllll...I might allow it. Again, +1/2...and on ALL your DEX, that's gonna be expensive. But just because you use it in a sensible case, doesn't mean it should be forced onto ALL cases. That's just Herbert.

What's sad about it? Turn out the lights.... The party's over... They say that all good things must end...... It's the Law of Conservation of Championships. They had WAY MORE than their share. The bill became due, and they haven't paid in full yet. (It is kinda freaky tho, especially given hockey's unpredictable nature.) Did you keep your ticket stub from the game?

Can't do it. They've been contaminated beyond hope. Their mere continued presence risks corruption of your culinary soul.

In a few weeks, the Stanley Cup will be awarded to a team from one of the hockey hotbeds...Raleigh, NC; Dallas; Miami; or Las Vegas. How is this possible??? Las Vegas is actually, it looks like, the furthest north...just a few minutes (of longitude) north of Raleigh. Strange days indeed. Another potential issue: bad ice. This might've been fixed but it's tricky to maintain the ice when there's a full house, and in the kinds of temperatures that can be expected, particularly by the time the finals take place.

Oh, I'd HATE!!! doing this in skill vs. skill contests. First, what trained skills end up resulting in a skill contest? Not many, and not often. Take a case where A has concealed something, and B is searching for it. This is not a skill contest as I think of it, but the rules do. You roll A's Concealment, and use that as a modifier on B's roll. See 6E1 57. That actually brings up that modifiers are based on standard skill rolls, not on some funky BODY-based manipulations. Plus, now you're introducing another factor...oh, is this a standard skill check, or a funky one where BODY's in play? Strikes me that you're doing the exact opposite of simplifying/streamlining. If you want the contest to run 2-3 rounds, fine. Make it an extended contest. First to get +5 total advantage. A makes roll by 2, B fails roll by 2...A's at +4. Next roll, A makes by 1, B makes by 3. A's at +2. And so on. This has a more dynamic feel to me anyway. But these are very rare. The most common would probably be grapple vs. escape...and that's counting BODY anyway. IF you're using cyber combat, ok, Comp Programming vs. Comp Programming...in Matrix combat, very definitely contested checks. Be careful here tho: this commonly involves only one player. From time to time, sure, it's cool, but it can *easily* be overused and become stale and boring.

I direct your attention to all comments about the chocolate-covered pickle... Those...cooks.....who dream up stuff like this, will be spending their afterlife in a kitchen run by a cranky Gordon Ramsay.....

Every system has the notion of contested rolls versus uncontested rolls. An uncontested roll is when you're dealing with a static effect...a specific, unchanging instance. There is nothing actively opposing you, so your success or failure is predicated strictly on your performance, and the difficulty of overcoming this particular effect. A contested roll is when this isn't the case...when someone else is dynamically opposing you. Can you solve this puzzle? Uncontested. Can you solve the puzzle before your arch rival does? Contested. STR stuff generally is checking BODY...but this is because defenses are BODY-related. A wall with 10 DEF and 10 BODY...it doesn't care about STUN pips. OTOH, mental and adjustment powers don't care about BODY pips, they're total level. I'm not fond of counting BODY routinely on a very small number of dice. I'll grant that the scaling is somewhat similar...5 points gives +1 die, or +1 to the roll...but the result range is far too small, and far, far too variable. The standard deviation of BODY pips for 3d6 is 1; that's way, way too high.

I agree that perfect balance is not only pointless, but probably impossible. Far too many moving parts. I disagree about the DI being cheaper. Buying STR or an HA, you don't spend END every phase...even if you're doing nothing. You do with DI, which has the occasional issue that you can't take a recovery with the DI active. Unless you're going to 0 END, and now the cost is higher. Plus, DI quickly applies what should be a significant Phys Lim...which may not be used against the player nearly often enough. 400 pounds...not much of an issue. 800? Problem. 1600? BIG problem. BTW, as I want to keep the SERIOUSLY high STR characters down, I use HAs, or martial arts DCs, a LOT more often. Lifting STR doubles every 5 points, whereas damage increases linearly. That screams mismatch. For me...past a 20 STR, my feeling is +5 STR --> 2 DCs. One's from the STR, the other from HA or MA DC. Still have to pay for it, but this keeps damage dealt more in line with lifting STR, for a while anyway. Hm. A side point here is applications. When you're building a weapon via HA, it actually makes more sense to start with 5 points per die, to keep DC costing as consistent as possible. It's NOT adding to your STR in any way, there's no pretense that it does. That mindset also argues for 5 points for MA DCs. Why were they 4? I'll argue, because they were 4 points in 5E and they failed to recognize that the costing NEEDED to change when they removed Figured Characteristics. OTOH, if I want a power that says "my punches hit harder"...an HA with no extraneous limitations...then pricing it the same as STR just begs the question, why buy it at all, rather than just more STR? I can get behind CRT's idea to simplify things...but I'd go further. ONE power to add damage. One can either change the base cost per die based on applicability, or specify a fixed base cost and use modifiers. This isn't a trivial distinction, because the cost of OTHER advantages is tied to the base cost. It might work out to split advantages into 2 groups...one that increases the level of the base (and thereby ties to things like range), as an adder does, and another that just increases the active cost. Another aspect can be looking at CSLs...a 2 point CSL can't be used for adding damage. So perhaps here, some of the levels *can't* be used with, say, AVADs...which is part of the reason why they're cheaper. So I kinda like varying the base cost. Maybe......cost suggestions are per d6... 3 points: No range. Can't add STR. Limited to normal damage versus PD or ED. 4 points: No range. Can add STR. Limited to normal or killing damage vs. PD or ED. 5 points: MA HTH DCs. 5 points: Ranged. Can't add STR. 6 points: MA Ranged DCs. 7 points: Ranged. CAN add STR (at the usual rate, +5 STR --> 1 DC.) Standard range. +1/4: as suggested above, the BODY damage is resisted only by resistant defenses. NOT allowed at the 3 point level. TK: I might roll that into this but keep the 3 points per level, and I might leave it as a standalone power. That's just off the top of my head, so I'm not locked into those numbers, and hey, maybe it doesn't work. But, I'd rather define a framework I can use that fits fairly well, over hopefully a fairly broad point range.

Another incident. A man with a baseball bat enters the offices of his Democratic congressman and assaults people. 2 are in the hospital with non-life-threatening injuries...but that doesn't mean non-life-changing. https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/15/politics/gerry-connolly-staffer-attacked/index.html And ANOTHER (#$@$ shooting incident...in Farmington. Shooter dead at the scene. Not a good day. Yet another Not A Good Day. And in Florida, DeSantis continues his mission to ensure Floridians are exposed only to Approved Ideologies....signed a bill today to completely defund any diversity, equality, or inclusion programs at all Florida public colleges and universities. There is a possible silver lining: if he gets the Republican nomination, he's SO extreme that I think he'll get very much movement from any undecideds. He's making Trump look almost palatable. One would never have conceived that to be possible.