TheDarkness

I think once you decide how to deal with how each armour type deals with each type of weapon(bludgeoning, slashing, thrusting), it's simple. Aside from doing it in game time.
 
Sword was pretty much always taught after staff/spear for a reason, since they follow similar mechanical principles. Also because, in reality, knowing sword meant knowing sword against sword, sword against spear, sword against sword and shield, etc.
 
The key difference is range. Once inside, a spear is now a bludgeoning weapon(yes, there are a few moves for bringing the point to bear inside, but the available moves if you're holding a long weapon and your opponent is inside are made up of far far more bludgeoning  than stabbing, and pretty much no slashing). At long range, staff is a more powerful bludgeoning weapon than it is in close range, because the leverage is far greater if you hold it at the base than at the center. This holds true for spear as well.
 
As for plate, there is a reason that thrusts became more prevalent after the age of armour ended. Heavy swings allowed for more pressure to be put on the armored opponent while allowing momentum to be more continuous, while thrusts were less likely to penetrate. Thrusts were ideally saved for when position allowed them against points where mobility requirements meant that the plate could not cover that point.
 
Arrows and bolts are really just piercing, range is also their biggest thing.
 
The key difference between most rpg approaches to weapons and a realistic one is that, in reality, assuming competence in your weapon, the most important knowledge at play for you is knowledge of how one fights with what your opponent has. If that knowledge is zero, you are likely to die. For a realistic game(in which players also wanted this realism) I've used a house rule that stated that the skill roll at play in attacks would be no higher than the skill level one has in their opponent's weapons, so if one had a high skill in sword but low in staff, and the opponent had a staff, then the lower of the two applied. The players were supposed to be seasoned soldiers, so it encouraged the purchase of a broad range of weapon types(each specific weapon did not have to be covered, long weapons, straight swords, curved sword, flexible weapons, broad categories were bought). This often worked dramatically for the players, as the enemies also fell under the same limitations, which meant that lackies were in trouble.
 
Anyway, good luck with what you're working on.

I've played with the idea in the past(in another system, but this is not so system specific) of gaining new spells either from finding those spells/being taught them by someone who knows them, and/or of researching through a skill spells one wishes to make.
 
They would still need to buy the spell when the time came.
 
This would be a campaign thing, not a rule per se. That way, there is a process for increasing in power for spell users. In that approach, I also worked in the idea that there was no general 'spell making' skill, but that it had to be bought in specific fields, be it 'dark magic creation', 'charms creation', 'protective spell creation', etc, so that spell casters, to become powerful in a broad range of things, would really have to either spend points on a wider range of skills as well, or alternatively roleplay amicable contacts with other spell users who would teach them their spells, or have influence/resources to obtain(through hook or crook) magic they themselves did not have the ability to create.

For games that have some focus on Tech, but not total focus (i.e. probably not playing Hackers Hero, but a more rounded Cyberpunk game) I broke down into the following broad skills for flavor:
Programming - actually writing software
Phreaking - phone systems
Networking - all layers (physical and software)
Hacking - part programming, but mostly the actual act of digital B&E (basically a computer only version of Security Systems)
(this on top of Security Systems for physical security, and Electronics gets hardware done.)
 
It's not super detailed, but it gets the job done for gaming. I find it has just enough detail to emulate a small group of tech-saavy characters that each have a field of expertise.

And the neckbeard.  Don't forget that, its a pretty big drawback.

Here are the optional maneuvers:
 
Maneuver            Phase OCV DCV Effects
Multifire               1          -2     -2      Use multiple shots to increase the DCs of the Firearm, only with non-autofire weapon (for every "hit" as if it were an autofire                                                                 attack, add +1 DC)
Precise Autofire 1          var    ½      Gain bonuses to hit single target once with Autofire (for instance +1 to +5 if you have auotofire 5)
Rapid Fire            1          -2/x   ½     Shoot one or more targets multiple times (works like multiattack and rapid autofire)
Ricocheted Shot ½         var    +0    Use CSLs to “bounce” a shot to hit protected target
Snap Shot            1          -1      +0    Lets character duck back behind cover after shooting
Strafe                    ½        -v/6    -2     Make Ranged attack while moving
Suppression Fire  1        -2       +0 Continuous fire on area, only with autofire weapon
 
Consult pages 204-205 of the MHI Handbook for details

And actually, that's why feints are more effective and necessary against people who have trained the 'right' responses. The feint is intended to summon up the correct response to the move that appears to be coming, only to then switch to something that capitalizes on that. If you feint with a jab, and I do something that is totally ineffective against a jab, but happens to block the line of attack of a hook, and your real attack is a hook, the hook will fail, irrespective of the fact that my response to your feint was totally wrong for what I thought was coming.
 
Well trained techniques are a double edged sword that way.

Actually something that I'm using for a system that I'm designing, but that I think is totally workable with Hero and was inspired by conversations here on non-combat skills and how often they get cheesed by way of 'six rolls define this one phase of this one combat, one roll often resolves, for good or ill, many other skills'.
 
Find ways to break it into more than one roll. Further, if it's important to a character or NPC, find ways beyond the skill to define it, perhaps more specific specialties that are higher level than the general hacking skill. Bonuses for time, of course. Lastly, gear, even if that gear is a program, adds to this and to the suspense.
 
By making it a process against an unknown opponent, instead of a roll, with more than one element, suspense can be built. By defining different elements, some of which you, as GM, know must succeed to break into the system, and other rolls whole failure is only important if some other event occurs(but the players don't know this), they will wonder, does this obviously failed roll mean discovery? This other, mediocre roll, the one that appeared to succeed, did it, or am I being led along by someone into believing I succeeded on cracking the password, but actually everything I'm looking at is a trick?
 
By expanding it in a way that builds suspense, the droid trying to trick the system into opening the door and letting allies in faces as incremental and suspenseful a role as the two allies trapped in the building with him facing stiff odds so that he can get them help.
 
As an aside, I tend to view difficulty as more usable a concept for things that are environmental, including stress, but also including a slow connection in the case of hacking. Having the feeling of an actual opponent who you cannot touch has a value, though, if it is not a prepared session where I expected hacking, and does not represent a highly secure target, I would totally just go with difficulty. Otherwise, I might invent a few layers of security, some of it actually seeking to shut down the hero's system, and thus requiring responses.
 
That said, it's much more usable for either a well prepared session, or where the write-ups for the system being hacked and its tools and the hero's is all there. Otherwise, I'd keep it simple, but still probably not default to a single roll except for the simplest thing.

I think you are mistaken about the goals of the Black Panther Party as it was originally constructed.  They wanted to be left alone to be black and prosper on their own terms without the constant oppression of the white society that surrounded them.  They started carrying guns so they could make it clear that they were ready to shoot back. Not to start shooting, but to shoot back rather than run around getting shot anymore.  They arranged for food and clothing drives, after school reading programs, neighborhood improvement projects, classes in mediation and non-violent conflict resolution for gang members.  They were trying to build Wakanda in Oakland, and the FBI created such an effective smear campaign that everyone remembers it the other way around.
 

He is in the Quoteforce. Expect massive changes to the timeline at 3...2...7

For me, the problem is, in a galaxy wide story, bloodlines are irrelevant. Literally, if the jedi are dependent on bloodlines, there is no way they could have ever been as influential as they are. And, to top it off, if one accepts bloodlines as relevant, then why aren't the cloners the most powerful producers of jedi and sith? Even in the stories with Thrawn, the clone sith was substandard, when, in reality, breeding programs and cloning would be the only efficient way to make either the sith or jedi anything but a tiny, tiny fringe too small to preserve their own traditions.
 
And the new movies seem to be accepting the limits of that. Luke and Annakin never equaled Yoda, and yet, there is little focus on Yoda's lineage. Even the Emperor could not best Yoda.
 
There is literally no consistent logic with an order dependent on transferring genetic potential to maintain effectiveness to be a celibate order.
 
The OT never actually states that it is genetic. It is far more thematically and philosophically(in a jedi sense) useful to view the fact that Vader's two children had congruence with the force to be the will of the force, that Vader's power became balanced by the force settling around those most likely to finally balance him as an individual.
 
Everything one would expect to be at play in a universe where family lines carried seriously relevant force potential is absent in the Star Wars universe for everyone but the Skywalkers. Yes, that's likely a result of poor world development matched by pop philosophy's influence on how the jedi were written, but it is what is written.
 
There is absolutely no need for the idea that the existence of the jedi without sith would lead to a new sith/dark jedi, and vice versa, through some convoluted rule or mechanic. The allure of the dark side already guarantees the tendency for some force users to turn to evil just like normal people do, and the depiction of the heartbreak and self delusion required to pursue the sith way already guarantees the seed of redemption. When Yoda says that the dark side forever clouds one's destiny, Vader proves that Yoda misinterprets this idea by showing his destiny to end through redemption; yes, a redemption that means his own destruction because of his dark past, but ending as a jedi capable of moving past death.
 
This is actually something I like about the new trilogy. Many complain about Kylo Ren being a brat, but honestly, sith are brats, evil is pretty much selfishness taken to its extreme, which is likewise why I find the idea of grey force users silly, the jedi's problem was not their central philosophy whatsoever, but their execution of it, the idea that more ideas that are merely steps toward the dark would make for a less destructive order. Taking children, acting as a police force working in a regimented way, these are not central to jedi philosophy, but customs they came to accept to their detriment. Vader and Palpatine hid the bulk of their baseness, but when their goals are observed, they are as childish as Kylo Ren's. Kylo Ren, in real world terms, acts out of rage far more purely than either did, and it is unseemly, because rage is unseemly, but that is supposed to be the source of their power.
 
This is why I think the final movie might prove interesting. We are in no doubt of what Ren is, he cannot play the role of mysterious villain like any of the others did, and it seems like the new movies are already specifically playing against types. Whether they pull it off or not is yet to be seen. And Ren did claim to see Rey turning to the darkside in his vision.
 
As for using the originals as templates, getting into a debate about how derivative they are, or whether their interpretation is novel in its own sense, gets messy. I'm sure there are more than a few that would sum up the OT as samurai movies set in Flash Gordon.

In Empire, the plans of the characters, especially at the end, come to naught. Luke interrupts his training to save his friends, yet his actions have no bearing on their rescue, Han takes them all to Bespin to lay low, and is led right into an Imperial trap, threepio discovers the trap early only to be taken out of commission so that he ends up being unable to reveal this until it's too late, Han pays for choosing Cloud City by being frozen in carbonite(and that fate is specifically tied to his not settling his debts earlier in the movie because of acting as the hero). Luke loses his hand.
 
In the new movie, the bad planning does not succeed, but is generally tied to character development, much like Empire, and likely as a thematic homage.
 
The idea that sci-fi fantasy or fantasy requires all plans to be heroic and successful is at odds with a lot of cornerstones of the genres. Moria was a clusterf$%#$ that further established the stupidly incautious behavior of one hobbit. Sirius Black dies because Harry was impetuous. It is very hard to establish a threat if the heroes never fail of their own accord.
 
That said, I strongly believe that the only course open in the new trilogy is one in which the very context of us vs. them is eroded, which would be in keeping with what they've done so far. Kylo Ren is an enemy we understand too well to provide the kind of drama necessary as an inscrutable adversary, so Kylo's redemption or ultimate fall, not the focus on an enemy, as well as the fall of the dynamics at play that drive the constant war, seems the likely theme.
 
And, for the record, the constant need to have force powers fall into family lines and tied to genetics should be called midichlorian theory, and I am quite happy that Rey is not somehow yet another skywalker, that she's not a clone of a jedi, etc. You'll note that, at the end of the movie, a slave kid moves a broom with the force after listening to the story of the fall of Luke. Just some slave kid, not a kid made in a vat by Palpatine, or the long lost line of Darth Bane, just a kid who happens to have force abilities, which would seem to be a prerequisite for any organization that once was able to staff a force large enough to police the galaxy with a host of non-skywalkers/palpatines, etc.
 
Forgive my curmudgeonness, it's ironic that I dislike making everyone related to a past major character, but could care less about midichlorians, since the latter is the only actual explanation ever provided for the former in force sensitives.

In Empire, the plans of the characters, especially at the end, come to naught. Luke interrupts his training to save his friends, yet his actions have no bearing on their rescue, Han takes them all to Bespin to lay low, and is led right into an Imperial trap, threepio discovers the trap early only to be taken out of commission so that he ends up being unable to reveal this until it's too late, Han pays for choosing Cloud City by being frozen in carbonite(and that fate is specifically tied to his not settling his debts earlier in the movie because of acting as the hero). Luke loses his hand.
 
In the new movie, the bad planning does not succeed, but is generally tied to character development, much like Empire, and likely as a thematic homage.
 
The idea that sci-fi fantasy or fantasy requires all plans to be heroic and successful is at odds with a lot of cornerstones of the genres. Moria was a clusterf$%#$ that further established the stupidly incautious behavior of one hobbit. Sirius Black dies because Harry was impetuous. It is very hard to establish a threat if the heroes never fail of their own accord.
 
That said, I strongly believe that the only course open in the new trilogy is one in which the very context of us vs. them is eroded, which would be in keeping with what they've done so far. Kylo Ren is an enemy we understand too well to provide the kind of drama necessary as an inscrutable adversary, so Kylo's redemption or ultimate fall, not the focus on an enemy, as well as the fall of the dynamics at play that drive the constant war, seems the likely theme.
 
And, for the record, the constant need to have force powers fall into family lines and tied to genetics should be called midichlorian theory, and I am quite happy that Rey is not somehow yet another skywalker, that she's not a clone of a jedi, etc. You'll note that, at the end of the movie, a slave kid moves a broom with the force after listening to the story of the fall of Luke. Just some slave kid, not a kid made in a vat by Palpatine, or the long lost line of Darth Bane, just a kid who happens to have force abilities, which would seem to be a prerequisite for any organization that once was able to staff a force large enough to police the galaxy with a host of non-skywalkers/palpatines, etc.
 
Forgive my curmudgeonness, it's ironic that I dislike making everyone related to a past major character, but could care less about midichlorians, since the latter is the only actual explanation ever provided for the former in force sensitives.

In Empire, the plans of the characters, especially at the end, come to naught. Luke interrupts his training to save his friends, yet his actions have no bearing on their rescue, Han takes them all to Bespin to lay low, and is led right into an Imperial trap, threepio discovers the trap early only to be taken out of commission so that he ends up being unable to reveal this until it's too late, Han pays for choosing Cloud City by being frozen in carbonite(and that fate is specifically tied to his not settling his debts earlier in the movie because of acting as the hero). Luke loses his hand.
 
In the new movie, the bad planning does not succeed, but is generally tied to character development, much like Empire, and likely as a thematic homage.
 
The idea that sci-fi fantasy or fantasy requires all plans to be heroic and successful is at odds with a lot of cornerstones of the genres. Moria was a clusterf$%#$ that further established the stupidly incautious behavior of one hobbit. Sirius Black dies because Harry was impetuous. It is very hard to establish a threat if the heroes never fail of their own accord.
 
That said, I strongly believe that the only course open in the new trilogy is one in which the very context of us vs. them is eroded, which would be in keeping with what they've done so far. Kylo Ren is an enemy we understand too well to provide the kind of drama necessary as an inscrutable adversary, so Kylo's redemption or ultimate fall, not the focus on an enemy, as well as the fall of the dynamics at play that drive the constant war, seems the likely theme.
 
And, for the record, the constant need to have force powers fall into family lines and tied to genetics should be called midichlorian theory, and I am quite happy that Rey is not somehow yet another skywalker, that she's not a clone of a jedi, etc. You'll note that, at the end of the movie, a slave kid moves a broom with the force after listening to the story of the fall of Luke. Just some slave kid, not a kid made in a vat by Palpatine, or the long lost line of Darth Bane, just a kid who happens to have force abilities, which would seem to be a prerequisite for any organization that once was able to staff a force large enough to police the galaxy with a host of non-skywalkers/palpatines, etc.
 
Forgive my curmudgeonness, it's ironic that I dislike making everyone related to a past major character, but could care less about midichlorians, since the latter is the only actual explanation ever provided for the former in force sensitives.

As far as the false equivalency thing, I do think that is a fair statement, while also recognizing that it doesn't exonerate the Democratic party of its own flaws, I just do not see strong evidence that they are wholesale the same flaws outside of those areas where elected officials' decisions are hemmed in by the structure of the state, the military, or the current states of the global balance of power.
 
Other than the beginning of Obama's presidency, left leaning publications and figureheads of the left made public statements against his policies and approaches. A simple search will show many figureheads of the left criticizing the ACA as too little, his military choices as a betrayal of his election promises, and, most especially, his actions intended to give GOP legislators room at the table that they then repeatedly chose not to take as pointless. One can find scores of articles from the mainstream press of the left on every one of these topics, and from Daily Show to Real Time, almost all those shows routinely criticized the Dems and Obama for these policies and for their seeming ineffectual actions in electioneering.
 
The difference is, the left, as far as major news sources, had and have to compete with each other, and thus have no one monolithic message that can reliably be cited without ignoring countless articles disagreeing from others on the left with equally large followers.
 
The right, conversely, has one major cable news provider, that serving a party whose political strategies are not the same as the Dems. The GOP has, for years now, based most of its actions on winning elections over establishing long-term policies that are different than the Dems. Yes, especially in regards to trade and the use of the military, both are not particularly different, but this more often than not has ties to the fact that, when dealing with the rest of the world, there are not as many options as people like to believe. North Korea and the current situation is a perfect example.
 
I happen to know one of our country's foremost experts on that topic, especially as it relates to China. There is not an expert worth dealing with on the topic that now buys into the 'crazy Kim' propaganda in the way both sides present it. North Korea has repeatedly worked on development of nukes, followed by slowing that work in response to sanctions and aid following said sanctions. While the press and leaders have repeatedly used that as evidence to prove the 'crazy Kim' thesis, neither U.S. nor Chinese experts have considered it anything other than the actions of rational actors, even if we don't like those actions. The recent attempts to change how we deal with it have only shown how thoroughly planned out those actions were compared to new attempts to stop it by way of bombast.
 
This is not to say that the Kim's are or were admirable leaders, but that they established a long term goal, and have largely completed that goal against huge resistance by meticulously sticking with a plan for specific results geared toward ensuring sovereignty even against three major powers, two sharing borders. Treating it as anything else has proven to be a recipe that pits those powers more against each other than against North Korea. But, this is the result of elected and appointed leaders buying the propaganda we ourselves put forward to our voters, and having to act as though it were all as simple as that propaganda portrays it to be.
 
You'll note that the exact same 'crazy Kim' approach was seamlessly followed from the father to the son. This policy had its virtues, but the current administration has spent a lot of the capital those virtues gave.
 
For dems, this was less of an issue, being a bigger tent party these days, there is not as often one issue, aside from equality, that all dems seem to consider deal breakers, and so playing the realpolitik of the situation was an option. For the GOP, it's become a huge issue, because, focusing on election wins more than long-term policy wins, they had to increasingly play to populist issues, and so 'we need to deal with Kim' has lead into the realization that it was never as simple as it was portrayed to be.
 
Whereas many dem voters might support increased gun control, most elected officials on that side avoided pushing that at all, while the GOP has put big dollars behind pushing forward statewide laws that they knew would not stand the constitutional test, because it played to their base, and the ability to push those messages by way of one single major cable network and smaller news sources acting as an echo chamber and source for reading the pulse of populist messages meant that there was not competition at the top to counter such policies. The RINO label is almost exclusively applied to the remnants of the camp that Buckley would most recognize, people who actually recognize politicking a two party system as being way more complex than simply always supporting one's party.
 
It is the nature of the different structures of the two parties and the press serving their views that the dems and the left leaning press outlets will have less party unity, and that the GOP with one monolithic cable presence and a focus on election wins over anything else will lean towards similar iterations of the same populist messages. The idea that these different structures yield the same uniformity of message is an uphill claim against the structural reality in place. MSNBC, for instance, tends to be less centric than CNN, whereas FOX must put it's dollars more behind the most popular view in place in the GOP, and will have less programming dedicated to programs that focus on views that may be more valid, but less popular.
 
Quite literally, in the last thirty years, the Dems have not had the capacity to have one monolithic message, the GOP has increasingly moved toward purity tests(RINO) and similar messages, and these two are the results of the goals and structures of the two parties and the media associated with them.

It was a post-Fact joke.

As far as the false equivalency thing, I do think that is a fair statement, while also recognizing that it doesn't exonerate the Democratic party of its own flaws, I just do not see strong evidence that they are wholesale the same flaws outside of those areas where elected officials' decisions are hemmed in by the structure of the state, the military, or the current states of the global balance of power.
 
Other than the beginning of Obama's presidency, left leaning publications and figureheads of the left made public statements against his policies and approaches. A simple search will show many figureheads of the left criticizing the ACA as too little, his military choices as a betrayal of his election promises, and, most especially, his actions intended to give GOP legislators room at the table that they then repeatedly chose not to take as pointless. One can find scores of articles from the mainstream press of the left on every one of these topics, and from Daily Show to Real Time, almost all those shows routinely criticized the Dems and Obama for these policies and for their seeming ineffectual actions in electioneering.
 
The difference is, the left, as far as major news sources, had and have to compete with each other, and thus have no one monolithic message that can reliably be cited without ignoring countless articles disagreeing from others on the left with equally large followers.
 
The right, conversely, has one major cable news provider, that serving a party whose political strategies are not the same as the Dems. The GOP has, for years now, based most of its actions on winning elections over establishing long-term policies that are different than the Dems. Yes, especially in regards to trade and the use of the military, both are not particularly different, but this more often than not has ties to the fact that, when dealing with the rest of the world, there are not as many options as people like to believe. North Korea and the current situation is a perfect example.
 
I happen to know one of our country's foremost experts on that topic, especially as it relates to China. There is not an expert worth dealing with on the topic that now buys into the 'crazy Kim' propaganda in the way both sides present it. North Korea has repeatedly worked on development of nukes, followed by slowing that work in response to sanctions and aid following said sanctions. While the press and leaders have repeatedly used that as evidence to prove the 'crazy Kim' thesis, neither U.S. nor Chinese experts have considered it anything other than the actions of rational actors, even if we don't like those actions. The recent attempts to change how we deal with it have only shown how thoroughly planned out those actions were compared to new attempts to stop it by way of bombast.
 
This is not to say that the Kim's are or were admirable leaders, but that they established a long term goal, and have largely completed that goal against huge resistance by meticulously sticking with a plan for specific results geared toward ensuring sovereignty even against three major powers, two sharing borders. Treating it as anything else has proven to be a recipe that pits those powers more against each other than against North Korea. But, this is the result of elected and appointed leaders buying the propaganda we ourselves put forward to our voters, and having to act as though it were all as simple as that propaganda portrays it to be.
 
You'll note that the exact same 'crazy Kim' approach was seamlessly followed from the father to the son. This policy had its virtues, but the current administration has spent a lot of the capital those virtues gave.
 
For dems, this was less of an issue, being a bigger tent party these days, there is not as often one issue, aside from equality, that all dems seem to consider deal breakers, and so playing the realpolitik of the situation was an option. For the GOP, it's become a huge issue, because, focusing on election wins more than long-term policy wins, they had to increasingly play to populist issues, and so 'we need to deal with Kim' has lead into the realization that it was never as simple as it was portrayed to be.
 
Whereas many dem voters might support increased gun control, most elected officials on that side avoided pushing that at all, while the GOP has put big dollars behind pushing forward statewide laws that they knew would not stand the constitutional test, because it played to their base, and the ability to push those messages by way of one single major cable network and smaller news sources acting as an echo chamber and source for reading the pulse of populist messages meant that there was not competition at the top to counter such policies. The RINO label is almost exclusively applied to the remnants of the camp that Buckley would most recognize, people who actually recognize politicking a two party system as being way more complex than simply always supporting one's party.
 
It is the nature of the different structures of the two parties and the press serving their views that the dems and the left leaning press outlets will have less party unity, and that the GOP with one monolithic cable presence and a focus on election wins over anything else will lean towards similar iterations of the same populist messages. The idea that these different structures yield the same uniformity of message is an uphill claim against the structural reality in place. MSNBC, for instance, tends to be less centric than CNN, whereas FOX must put it's dollars more behind the most popular view in place in the GOP, and will have less programming dedicated to programs that focus on views that may be more valid, but less popular.
 
Quite literally, in the last thirty years, the Dems have not had the capacity to have one monolithic message, the GOP has increasingly moved toward purity tests(RINO) and similar messages, and these two are the results of the goals and structures of the two parties and the media associated with them.

As far as the false equivalency thing, I do think that is a fair statement, while also recognizing that it doesn't exonerate the Democratic party of its own flaws, I just do not see strong evidence that they are wholesale the same flaws outside of those areas where elected officials' decisions are hemmed in by the structure of the state, the military, or the current states of the global balance of power.
 
Other than the beginning of Obama's presidency, left leaning publications and figureheads of the left made public statements against his policies and approaches. A simple search will show many figureheads of the left criticizing the ACA as too little, his military choices as a betrayal of his election promises, and, most especially, his actions intended to give GOP legislators room at the table that they then repeatedly chose not to take as pointless. One can find scores of articles from the mainstream press of the left on every one of these topics, and from Daily Show to Real Time, almost all those shows routinely criticized the Dems and Obama for these policies and for their seeming ineffectual actions in electioneering.
 
The difference is, the left, as far as major news sources, had and have to compete with each other, and thus have no one monolithic message that can reliably be cited without ignoring countless articles disagreeing from others on the left with equally large followers.
 
The right, conversely, has one major cable news provider, that serving a party whose political strategies are not the same as the Dems. The GOP has, for years now, based most of its actions on winning elections over establishing long-term policies that are different than the Dems. Yes, especially in regards to trade and the use of the military, both are not particularly different, but this more often than not has ties to the fact that, when dealing with the rest of the world, there are not as many options as people like to believe. North Korea and the current situation is a perfect example.
 
I happen to know one of our country's foremost experts on that topic, especially as it relates to China. There is not an expert worth dealing with on the topic that now buys into the 'crazy Kim' propaganda in the way both sides present it. North Korea has repeatedly worked on development of nukes, followed by slowing that work in response to sanctions and aid following said sanctions. While the press and leaders have repeatedly used that as evidence to prove the 'crazy Kim' thesis, neither U.S. nor Chinese experts have considered it anything other than the actions of rational actors, even if we don't like those actions. The recent attempts to change how we deal with it have only shown how thoroughly planned out those actions were compared to new attempts to stop it by way of bombast.
 
This is not to say that the Kim's are or were admirable leaders, but that they established a long term goal, and have largely completed that goal against huge resistance by meticulously sticking with a plan for specific results geared toward ensuring sovereignty even against three major powers, two sharing borders. Treating it as anything else has proven to be a recipe that pits those powers more against each other than against North Korea. But, this is the result of elected and appointed leaders buying the propaganda we ourselves put forward to our voters, and having to act as though it were all as simple as that propaganda portrays it to be.
 
You'll note that the exact same 'crazy Kim' approach was seamlessly followed from the father to the son. This policy had its virtues, but the current administration has spent a lot of the capital those virtues gave.
 
For dems, this was less of an issue, being a bigger tent party these days, there is not as often one issue, aside from equality, that all dems seem to consider deal breakers, and so playing the realpolitik of the situation was an option. For the GOP, it's become a huge issue, because, focusing on election wins more than long-term policy wins, they had to increasingly play to populist issues, and so 'we need to deal with Kim' has lead into the realization that it was never as simple as it was portrayed to be.
 
Whereas many dem voters might support increased gun control, most elected officials on that side avoided pushing that at all, while the GOP has put big dollars behind pushing forward statewide laws that they knew would not stand the constitutional test, because it played to their base, and the ability to push those messages by way of one single major cable network and smaller news sources acting as an echo chamber and source for reading the pulse of populist messages meant that there was not competition at the top to counter such policies. The RINO label is almost exclusively applied to the remnants of the camp that Buckley would most recognize, people who actually recognize politicking a two party system as being way more complex than simply always supporting one's party.
 
It is the nature of the different structures of the two parties and the press serving their views that the dems and the left leaning press outlets will have less party unity, and that the GOP with one monolithic cable presence and a focus on election wins over anything else will lean towards similar iterations of the same populist messages. The idea that these different structures yield the same uniformity of message is an uphill claim against the structural reality in place. MSNBC, for instance, tends to be less centric than CNN, whereas FOX must put it's dollars more behind the most popular view in place in the GOP, and will have less programming dedicated to programs that focus on views that may be more valid, but less popular.
 
Quite literally, in the last thirty years, the Dems have not had the capacity to have one monolithic message, the GOP has increasingly moved toward purity tests(RINO) and similar messages, and these two are the results of the goals and structures of the two parties and the media associated with them.

If you are irreplaceable, you cannot be promoted.

Your relationship has no chemistry. Anyone listening to any of your conversations can see this.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Leave Annakin now.

Many commentators recently have been paraphrasing Martin Luther King in pointing out that people aren't born hating any group; they have to be taught to hate. I concur that no few people espousing a white-nationalist/supremacist philosophy, or preaching hatred of entire ethnic or religious groups, were brought up indoctrinated in those beliefs by others, or have embraced them as a way to rationalize and scapegoat the fear and despair they feel in their lives. So yes, some such people may potentially be turned to a more constructive path.
 
That doesn't change the fact that the philosophy itself is loathsome and should be denounced; and those who seek to propagate it publicly have to be publicly disputed. History has shown that ignoring those sentiments only allows them to grow, until they burst all bounds of civilized restraint.

No. Just, no.
 
Historical context matters. The Klan and Nazis have a lot of blood on their hands. This isn't hyperbole, you've got people publicly representing themselves as members of organizations with multiple murders on their track record, who have espoused terror tactics and violence for decades.
 
I can dislike some Antifa tactics, no problem. They are not in any way, shape, or form equivalent to the Nazis or KKK. Marching with flags, armbands and torches while chanting "blood and soil" then having someone associated with your really attempting multiple murder automatically cedes the moral high ground in my estimation. No equivalence. Done.

My problems to antifa evaporated when I heard a trump voter say he "couldn't wait for the great liberal genocide to begin!"
 
Yeah, if someone's goal is to murder me I have little problem with them being...neutralized.

OK let's make this simple enough for more people to understand.
 
You're black and you have to go to court. How do you feel when you see a statue of someone who fougt for you to be a slave, property, with no legal protection or human rights, out in front of that court, or your local city hall, or your state capitol?
 
Get it now?

The majority of those statues were placed by the Sons/Daughters of the Confederacy. I have my own thoughts of what their motives were in placing them, and historical preservation isn't in those thoughts.

I actually unsubscribed from the newsletter of wargame publisher Avalanche Press today when it features, for the second week in a row,, prominently displayed images of the Lee statue on Charlottesville that someone literally died over. They were clearly making a statement, that they wanted it to stay up and that as far as they could tell "wargamer" automatically equals "conservative". The most dedicated wargamer I know, who specializes in the American Civil War, is an African-American liberal and one of the most generous people I have ever met in my life. The stereotype rings false.
 
I told Avalanche in no uncertain terms how they had lost my business. Wargamer and Conservative do not imply one another in the least.