The PPC Posting Board - Latest posts

This was a well-written mission. Even though I was not intimately familiar with all four continua, I was able to follow the mission.

Errors:
“Vi?” asked Lapis. Then a cross-vein appeared on her head. “Sarah, did you seriously —”

“No connection, none at all!” Sarah had her hands raised, her expression exactly as one would expect from a girl staring down a mouthful of teeth like a great white shark. “Cupid’s ex, remember? You saw her at the Gift Exchange this past January.”
What beef does Lapis have against Vi? Especially given this following quote:

I’m guessing she’s the one who invited me and Ami?”

“Yeah, that’s me. I’m Lapis Lazuli, pronounced Lay-pis La-ZOO-lee.
Did Lapis invite Vi or not?


“I’m not exactly happy about this either, Lapis,” Aiko replied, glaring right back at her childhood rival. “I wasn’t aware that you would be here with either. If I had been, I would probably have reconsidered.”

That word doesn't belong.


happened fifty thousand, seven hundred and fifty years ago.

According to the Steven Universe Wiki, it was 5,750 years ago, not 50,750. Or did I read the wrong page?


She grabbed Ami’s hand and ran to catch up with the Crystal Gems, currently getting Steven and the replacements to safety.

I'm guessing that it was the Gems getting Steven to safety, not Violet. Either delete the comma or add "who were" after the comma. Actually, the latter option would be clearer.

/a little typo-based levity in a dark time

~Neshomeh, who also cares about all those things.

I mean, I've added it, because enclaves are funny, but I still have to ask.

I've also added four far-eastern nations: the Empire of Japan, North Korea (nobody wants North Korea), the People's Republic of China (now in Taiwain), and the Republic of China (no longer in Taiwan, now in Penghu). I don't know who's running China these days, it's like one of those IQ tests. COMPLETE THIS PATTERN: Empire--Republic--One-Party State--________

I still haven't decided what to do with Russia. So far we've had Tsars, the Fourth Rome, and some generic imperialism. They might even pair with the blank space between Mongolia and the MoNARchy to form Tomash's Orthodox League, which would then be in direct opposition to both the Mongols and the Papal State.

Hmm. That doesn't even necessarily conflict with your Fourth Rome idea. Could you explain a bit of your logic on that one, perchance?

(And then the Tsars could set up shop in... Alaska. :D 'White Russian' indeed.)

hS

The most important issues to me included, but were not limited to, some or all of the following (in no particular order):

Mental Health Care
Expansion of the Affordable Care Act
LGBTQA+ Rights
Women's Rights
Gun Control
Religious Freedom
Basic Human Decency

-Phobos, really considering becoming a politician at this point.

I'm not very eloquent about policy, but basically, anyone who ignores that whole "liberty and justice for all" thing they make us pledge allegiance to every day of our young lives is not fit to lead this country.

I'm not deaf to the complaints that Clinton MAY have done some questionable things, but... she was never proven to have actually done them, or to have any actual malice aforethought. So... what's left to dislike? (Well, for me, she's not as progressive as Bernie Sanders, who I really wanted. But she's the next-best thing as far as my ideals are concerned.)

Trump, on the other hand, very openly threatens the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for, let's see, brown Americans, black Americans, poor Americans, handicapped/mentally ill Americans, women Americans, LGBT+ Americans, Muslim Americans, and everyone who lives on this planet and would like their descendants to be able to do so without frying due to either global climate change or simply being nuked for the foreseeable future. Just to name a few.

I AM NOT OKAY WITH THAT.

Plus, I never heard any description of his policies that made logical sense to me. This is an actual, serious problem, which I hope someone else can explain better than I could.

~Neshomeh

In the most 2016ish way possible.

(Wasn't the 2004 incident a mistake, rather than a deliberate act of rebellion?)

Apparently four electors threatened to do exactly this: two Democrats from Washington said they'd refuse to vote Clinton (which they're pledged to), and Republicans in Georgia and Texas said they'd refuse to vote Trump (ditto).

A random article from Time talks about this and suggests the following:

The first applies if an elector abstains or flips his vote in such a way that it results in an Electoral College tie. In such a case, then a little known provision buried in the Twelfth Amendment mandates that the House decides the president, while the Senate chooses the vice president. Each state delegation in the House casts one vote for president, and whichever candidates get the simple majority wins.

The second constitutional check is more broad. On January 6, 2017, the newly elected Congress will meet to determine if the Electoral College vote was “regularly given.” For most of the country’s 57 past presidential elections, this vote has been ceremonial. But it doesn’t have to be. If just one House member and one senator objects to the way that the Electoral College vote played out—for example, if a faithless elector swings the final tally—then the new members can retreat to chambers to vote on what to do about it. If the House and Senate agree, their decision is final. If the House or the Senate do not agree, then the dispute goes to the “executive of the state,” meaning the state’s Secretary of State, who would make the final call.

In other words, if Satiacum, Chiafalo, Vu, or Suprun cast a vote that ultimately alters the course of the election, and anyone in the newly-elected House or Senate balks, then the decision, in all likelihood, will be delegated to Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, or Texas Secretary of State Carlos Cascos. And while it’s impossible to say what, exactly, those state chiefs would choose, they would be under extraordinary pressure to honor the voters’ will.

I kind of hope it will happen, just for the total 2016ishness of it all. (Is the the point where I go off-the-wall and start yelling 'Hail Discordia'?)

hS

People complain about the antiquated Electoral College. Maybe it is, maybe not. This is not an argument for the College. But the Electoral College was designed by the Framers of the US Constitution with the idea in mind that direct democracy cannot be trusted. When a State's Electoral Votes go to a candidate, all that means is that that candidate is expected to get those Electoral Votes. But I think only about half of the US requires their Electoral Votes actually go to the candidate that won their state. So theoretically, though highly unlikely, enough of the Electoral College could decide that Trump is not qualified for the Presidency, and could either vote for other choices or Hillary Clinton, so that she gets enough to win a majority, or at least a plurality of the College to win.

Let me impress upon you that this is a highly unlikely scenario, but is not completely unprecedented. In fact Alexander Hamilton, I think it was, basically described that the purpose of Electoral College was to prevent the populous from electing someone who is vastly unqualified from becoming president. And I think there is an argument that Mr. Trump is uniquely unqualified for the position. There is something known as a Faithless Elector. It is rare, but occasionally happens where an Elector does not vote for the person they are supposed to. The last time it happened was in 2004, a Minnesota Elector voted for John Edwards instead of John Kerry, who he was pledged to vote for.

Now to this point in US History these Faithless Electors have never actually decided an election. Enough Electors have voted the way the College implies they will vote. But as we have seen continuously, this election seems to break all the rules. So in theory there could be enough Faithless Electors that allow Secretary Clinton to be elected President instead of Mr. Trump.

My email is in the post below, and many others are available on the wiki, if you want to find a way to keep in contact.

What's going on?

Regardless, I hope whatever it is works out alright for you. Take care.

You claim:

Bill Clinton talks to the head of the Justice Department, and surprise, surprise, even though FBI Director Comey spells out that Hillary was "extremely reckless" with classified information (translated into legalese: "gross negligence"), the Justice Department declines to prosecute.

That is not, in fact, what happened. You're implying that the Clinton's pressured or persuaded the Justice Department to ignore the FBI's proof that Hillary was a criminal. That is not what happened.

This is a quote from the actual statement from the director of the FBI:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

[...]

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. (Source on the FBI website)

The FBI, not the Justice Department, made the initial statement that they didn't think charges were appropriate. The fact that you either chose to mask that fact, or were unaware of it (and in fact seemed to believe the opposite), makes me extremely disinclined to trust any of the rest of your statements.

hS

The Wikipedia article is virtually unreadable, but seems to say that Secretary of State Clinton's heinous crime was... not increasing security? More specifically, not increasing security in the face of this specific potential - not, apparently, a direct threat of - terrorist attack? Out of what I know (from the number of terrorist plots purportedly thwarted by the police over here) must have been dozens, if not hundreds. Is that right?

And if so, how does that match up with the fact that September 11th, 2001 - which you've namedropped, I see - was also reported afterwards to have been massively foreshadowed? I seem to remember the president for that getting reelected. Help me out here.

hS

I'm genuinely curious to know what President Obama did that you needed to 'survive'. I know what I'm afraid Trump will do - that's the antagonistic (or at least potentially-antagonising reply, which I will make if requested but not if not), but from over here it doesn't look like Obama has done anything to decrease the quality of life of Americans as a whole or individually. (I can actually only name two things he did, period: took a baby-step towards proper healthcare, and killed Bin Laden. He's not made much of an impression on me.)

So: what did you 'survive'? Enquiring me's want to know.

hS

I know people have many reasons for disengaging with online spaces, but given everything that's happened in the last two days, I thought it was worth checking in.

Hope all is well with you.

I may be reachable through Discord or Tumblr, but honestly that really depends on the next 24 hours. In any case, I'm going to miss you guys.

Even if it was 15 years ago, I remember when her father went to the second turn. I remember that, while the first turn was a massive failure thanks to the polls, the ducker was kept out of the presidential office.

I refuse to believe his girl can win just 15 years after that. Unless both of Sarkozy and Hollande are present, and one of them is the one for the second turn. And let me tell you, they're far from there.

Climate change. Sensible taxation. Forgiveness on student debt. And, most importantly for me, the preservation and upholding of the First Amendment.

That last issue, truly, is why I loath Trump so much. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the First Amendment. I am to the First what an NRA member is to the Second. It's a shame that most First Amendment groups are full of bigots that just want to stop being criticized. To me, the ability for a populace to discuss, debate, and read about absolutely anything they so wish without fear of legal persecution is the cornerstone of any true civilized country. The freedom to practice any religion one wants (as long as it's not a murder cult or something) without fear of persecution by the government is quite literally a major reason this country came to be. The ability of the press to publish what they wish without being silenced is, perhaps beyond anything else, a tremendous tool against tyranny.

And if Donald Trump has his way? You can kiss the First Amendment goodbye.

Forget his ban on Muslims, though believe me I wont, he has spoken at multiple points how he wants the ability to revoke the freedom of the press, because they joke about him, or expose him for just how bad a businessman he truly is. He revels in suing people who disagree. Heck, he even stated how he wants to regulate the internet! To me, despite what most "First Amendment Supporters" say, Donald Trump is the greatest treat to the constitution that as shown themselves in a long, long time.

Also, side note? If anyone who is "Pro First Amendment" ever complains about criticism from the "PC crowd", they are not pro First Amendment. They want to say bigoted things without criticism. I believe everyone has a right to their opinion, and the right to express it. Even the KKK and Westboro. But you know who else has the right to their opinions and ability to express them? Those who think your opinions are wrong. If you are anti-debate and discussion, you are anti-First Amendment. Sorry. Had to get that off my chest.

I knew you'd show up with the correct terms at some point. ^_^

I mean, looking at his cabinet, this is going to be a rough two - four years. Still, hopefully something happens that makes these years not horrifically awful.

Now, I do want to ask this sincerely: what do you want to see implemented other than first-past-the-post? Now, electoral collage? Scrap it. It is the absolute worst system I have ever seen in a so called "democracy" that was outdated at the very outset, and certainly is outdated now. But, to me, I don't see any voting system that would make things more fair. Now, please, by all means, if you have something, offer it! I am not saying that a two party system is good. Far from it. I want more third parties. But, I just don't see how the other systems I have seen don't have the exact same pitfalls that a strait democracy has.

And maybe, if we're proposing things that probably won't happen soon happen (except in Maine! Go Maine!), adding more seats to the House.

That dataa seems to have come from a survey that was made with Survey Monkey. So, you know. Not exactly a professional poll. I'm not saying this map is useless, I'm just saying, use a grain of salt.

I would like to know, what were the most important issues to you?