assault

Written by one of my seminary professors and the man I did my student teaching with.
 
http://penews.org/features/secrets-unlocked-from-ancient-scroll
 
 
 

Incidentally, an estimated 2.5 million protesters marched across the US today. Thousands more marched on every continent...including Antarctica. You really have to piss someone off to get them to go outside to protest at the South Pole.

I was impressed by the rhetoric about God being with us and wanting one people, one country, one leader.*
 
 
 
 
 
--*Technically it's not Godwin's law if the poster is invoking it for himself.

One thing I did not understand from Trump's speech. What exactly does 
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them  mean ?

Weapons Master
 
Male Char Female
20 STR 15
18 DEX 20
20 CON 18
12 BODY 11
18 INT 18
11 EGO 14
20 PRE 20
18 COM 18
8 PD 7 
6 ED 7
4 SPD 4
8 REC 7
40 END 36
32 STUN 28
Total Characteristics Cost: 100 Points
 
Cost Skills
3 Acrobatics 13-
3 Breakfall 13-
3 Climbing 13-
6 Combat Luck +3 rPD +3 rED
8 CSL: Combat +1
15 CSL: Ranged Combat +3
3 Concealment 13-
3 Contortionist 13-
3 Fast Draw 13-
4 Martial Block
4 Martial Dodge
4 Martial Strike
3 Martial Throw
2 Navigation [Air or Ground] 13-
5 Offensive Strike
3 Stealth 13-
3 Tactics 13-
Total Skills Cost: 75 Points
 
Cost Powers
10 Armor +5 rPD +5 rED, OIF: Costume (-1/2)
30 Multipower (60 Points) OAF: Weapon (-1)
3 u) EB 12d6, [16c] (-0)
3 u) EB 4d6, AE 4"r (+1), NND [LS: Self Contained] (+1), [16c] (-0)
3 u) EB 8d6, Armor Piercing (+1/2), [16c] (-0)
3 u) EB 8d6, Explosion (+1/2), [16c] (-0)
3 u) Entangle 4d6 DEF 4, Takes No Damage (+1/2), [16c] (-0)
20 Flight 10", 8x NCM or Running +5", 8x NCM, No END (+1/2), OIF: Transportation (-1/2)
Total Powers Cost: 75 Points
 
Total Cost: 250 Points

Damn you, Congress! You made me agree with Trump!
 
Darn you all to heck!

9 million painkillers shipped to Kermit, WV pharmacy over last 2 years
 
Kermit has a population of 400

Well there is some irony for ya.

Aboriginal art depicting Wandjina figure that sparked aliens theory to be reclaimed by traditional owners
 

Victory for now

Don't worry, be happy it is St Barbara's Day !

Pilot/Astronaut

The opposite of a mandate?
 
A womanscorn?

Sydney schoolboys take down Martin Shkreli, the 'most hated man in the world'
 

Sydney schoolboys take down Martin Shkreli, the 'most hated man in the world'
 

Sydney schoolboys take down Martin Shkreli, the 'most hated man in the world'
 

It's basically the way Australia does it.
 
If voter education is an issue, allow optional preferencing. That means you don't need to rank all the candidates, and your vote is still valid.
 
So you could just vote 1, and it would be valid. Of course, if your candidate doesn't have the first or second highest number of votes, your vote will be "wasted" as per the current system.
 
Or you could vote 1,2, and it would be valid. Thus, you could have voted for Stein, and then had your vote transferred to Clinton.
 
Or 1,2,3. Say, Stein first, then the Libertarian, then Trump.
 
Or 1,2,3,4, which would be identical to the option above in a four horse race.
 
If someone voted 1,2,2,2, presumably it would be treated as just voting 1, or it could be treated as an invalid vote, depending on the rules. But at that point we'd have to start looking at the implications of computerized voting versus stubby pencils and hand counting.
 
Changing the system would cause a higher rate of voting errors to begin with, but people would get used to it soon enough.

It's basically the way Australia does it.
 
If voter education is an issue, allow optional preferencing. That means you don't need to rank all the candidates, and your vote is still valid.
 
So you could just vote 1, and it would be valid. Of course, if your candidate doesn't have the first or second highest number of votes, your vote will be "wasted" as per the current system.
 
Or you could vote 1,2, and it would be valid. Thus, you could have voted for Stein, and then had your vote transferred to Clinton.
 
Or 1,2,3. Say, Stein first, then the Libertarian, then Trump.
 
Or 1,2,3,4, which would be identical to the option above in a four horse race.
 
If someone voted 1,2,2,2, presumably it would be treated as just voting 1, or it could be treated as an invalid vote, depending on the rules. But at that point we'd have to start looking at the implications of computerized voting versus stubby pencils and hand counting.
 
Changing the system would cause a higher rate of voting errors to begin with, but people would get used to it soon enough.

It's basically the way Australia does it.
 
If voter education is an issue, allow optional preferencing. That means you don't need to rank all the candidates, and your vote is still valid.
 
So you could just vote 1, and it would be valid. Of course, if your candidate doesn't have the first or second highest number of votes, your vote will be "wasted" as per the current system.
 
Or you could vote 1,2, and it would be valid. Thus, you could have voted for Stein, and then had your vote transferred to Clinton.
 
Or 1,2,3. Say, Stein first, then the Libertarian, then Trump.
 
Or 1,2,3,4, which would be identical to the option above in a four horse race.
 
If someone voted 1,2,2,2, presumably it would be treated as just voting 1, or it could be treated as an invalid vote, depending on the rules. But at that point we'd have to start looking at the implications of computerized voting versus stubby pencils and hand counting.
 
Changing the system would cause a higher rate of voting errors to begin with, but people would get used to it soon enough.

It's basically the way Australia does it.
 
If voter education is an issue, allow optional preferencing. That means you don't need to rank all the candidates, and your vote is still valid.
 
So you could just vote 1, and it would be valid. Of course, if your candidate doesn't have the first or second highest number of votes, your vote will be "wasted" as per the current system.
 
Or you could vote 1,2, and it would be valid. Thus, you could have voted for Stein, and then had your vote transferred to Clinton.
 
Or 1,2,3. Say, Stein first, then the Libertarian, then Trump.
 
Or 1,2,3,4, which would be identical to the option above in a four horse race.
 
If someone voted 1,2,2,2, presumably it would be treated as just voting 1, or it could be treated as an invalid vote, depending on the rules. But at that point we'd have to start looking at the implications of computerized voting versus stubby pencils and hand counting.
 
Changing the system would cause a higher rate of voting errors to begin with, but people would get used to it soon enough.

I could use one of these devices:
 

Sikhs aren't Muslims, despite being targeted by Islamophobes.

I see a lot of correlation to BUsh vs Gore, running a "look at that idiot, vote for me" campaign does not seem to work very well...

Because Australia still elects right wing lunatics?

Actually, you don't have to have first past the post. Preferential (instant run-off) systems give similar results, without the same degree of enforcement of a two-party system.
 
Having said that, the UK uses first past the post, but has a bunch of parties represented in Parliament. On the other hand, the connection between their representation and their share of the popular vote is sometimes dubious.
 
Several of the smaller parties are regional ones (Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru (Welsh), various Northern Irish parties), but other parties have managed to break through as well in particular areas.
 
The main thing seems to be organization on the ground, and a reflection of the social composition and interests of the constituency.
 
Australia uses a preferential system, and so isn't particularly relevant to the US case, but... Historically it has had three major parties, including separate rural and urban conservative parties. More recently, there has been an increasingly large proportion of minor party and independent candidates. Most of these are conservatives. While their voters were mainly originally disaffected supporters of the major parties, it seems to be becoming increasingly common for people to be committed followers of one or more of the minor parties. But as I mentioned, this is in a context of preferential voting, where such votes don't prevent the Lesser Evil from being elected.
 
The best way to force a change away from first past the post voting would be to establish relatively large third/fourth parties, whose votes can lose elections for the major parties, without being terrorized by "you elected Trump!" style attacks. Eventually, the major parties would probably decide that they actually need the "wasted" votes, and change the electoral system to co-opt them.
 
Not easy.