Patrick MacFarlane

As I understand it, the EU is supposed to be an economic power-union to primarily benefit the member nations by increasing communication and economic freedom for citizens underneath the EU banner. 

[If that is wrong,  I beg of the knights to not respond to anything beyond right here and correct me. I want to have a proper understanding of the EU so that I may form a proper conclusion on my own, rather than simply believing someone else's. However, if that was right, please continue reading and respond. ]

Therefore, I believe the EU should remain strictly that, an economic pact, and exclude itself from a multinational political agenda under the pretenses of economic growth and development.

OR drop the guise and just change the open intent of the economic union to fully and transparently embrace the European Confederation of States that they appear to already be pushing. If they want to be a multinational governing body that dabbles in the political sides of things, I don't care as long as they are honest about it. And should they go this second route, why not bring the World Court, or European Court, or however they call it, under the same banner? Judicial system, economic authority, and political power all under one flag. Why not? 

I personally, if you cannot tell, am in favour of small government. In most cases I can be satisfied with a massive, corrupt, or in any other way "bad" government as long as they are mostly transparent. Not honest, but visible. I want the EU to do what it says it'll do and stop the excess or change what it says it'll do and keep up business as usual. That's it. 

It may just be time for the UK to dissolve. This really shows the rifts that have developed

5 hours ago, Woot said:

Apparently it's unacceptable to throw out an economic union for trivial reasons like populist resentment. Just crazy and unacceptable.
But flushing basic principles of democracy down the toilet for the sake of that economic union? Perfectly reasonable. Do-over votes, retroactively changing the margin required for victory, those things will lead to stability. Are you nuts?

Even the anti-Brexit politicians immediately denied the possibility of the second referendum because they know what a ridiculous precedent that would be.

I'll be honest, my browser crashed and I lost my original message which I was typing for ten minutes. I got mad and just tried to get the meat of it back in the text box before posting. My post hardly captures what I intended to say. I apologize for the apparent contradiction in my thinking, that was not the desired message. 

While I do recognize the significance of 1.8% of the population I personally don't think that kind of margin should decide the fate of a Union of independent nations especially when so regionally divided. This is why I believe that the initial leave majority should have been higher. If 60-65% of the UK says leave even including the pro-EU Scots, that means a lot more. Mostly that the Brexit vote wasn't just a slim victory of a fear-mongering leave campaign like so many Europeans accuse Trump of.

Also, any result more than 50% but coming shy of the victory margin, that would be a range of popular vote that would send a strong message to the UK government, would it not? A message that half of the nation is not pleased with the situation that their leaders are placing them in due to EU politics. And I seriously doubt that the UK doesn't carry some serious weight in the decisions and policies of the EU with the sheer size of their contribution the the European and Global markets. I think it's important in the long run that they remain in EU and be an agent of change if they can be and the UK's populace say that change is what they want. But no such message could be sent. Instead, 1.8% of the population decided that the UK would abandon the known realm of the EU where they could be promised economic strength and possibly a gradually changing political agenda and take the unknown of an independent, and possibly shattered, UK.

I think in the absence of solid evidence and research into the potential long-run effects of Brexit, the increased majority required and airing on the side of caution and stability would have been better. I did not intend to suggest we go around undermining democracy by changing terms post-vote. I think they just put themselves in a tight position when airing on the side of caution might have been better. 

I think it was was near-sighted and ludicrous to expect an economic super-pact the size of the EU not to start exercising and pursuing a political agenda. And I know that from my research and what I see as an outsider, that what it seems is wrong with the EU. It's turned into more of a Confederacy than a free-trade and economic pact. If I was a European leader, I would be very hesitant to sacrifice control of my borders and immigration policy to an international body that may not always have the interests of my people specifically as their highest priority. If my people are in the minority of the EU that wants or doesn't want something, I can't promise my people their desires will be heard because I don't have that control. 

Now, I see two problems with the UK referendum that just happened:

1. I understand from multiple sources that the leave campaign was not so much one of shedding an over-reaching economic union as it was one of "fear-mongering". That, I have a problem with. 
2. Also, the referendum's majority was a joke. 51.8% proves absolutely nothing except an even rift. That 1.8% of the population means even less when you see just how regionally/nationally divided the UK was in this vote. The Scots had a strong majority that wanted to stay. N. Ireland did too if I remember correctly. The simple majority for something like this was a bad call. A 65% majority requirement would have gone further to prove that an actual "majority" wanted to leave. 

I would suggest a second referendum with a real majority requirement. 

I think 50% of the leave population being butthurt and the whole nation being stable is better than 50% of the remain population being butthurt and the UK in danger of the unknown. 

If they're going to leave the EU it needs to be after studying the far-reaching effects of their actions and not a by a fearful populist revolution-type campaign

I understand that science has not proven the existence of "ghosts" however, my understanding of what they are inseparable from my faith.  

I believe the Bible identifies three kinds of existence:

•  the Earthly (which includes humans and animals)
• the Heavenly (to include the Lord is all aspects and the angels of all kinds)
• and the Demonic (The fallen angel Lucifer and those who fell with him, previously of the Heavenly realm but separated by Lucifer and God)

I know people that have experienced the these "ghosts" or "apparitions" and my interpretation of those would be that they are either Heavenly or Demonic servants choosing to cross your path in forms we might recognize or just interpret better. What distinguishes the two is the message/result of the encounter. For example, I have struggled recently with the loss of my great grandmother. If I were to see her and she told me to stay strong and that she loved me, that I would interpret as a Heavenly servant appearing unto me for uplifting and spiritual wellness. Other the other hand, if she appeared to me in the same way and told me that God wanted me to be his spear and punish the world of sinners by shooting up a gas station, I would understand that to be a Demonic presence because it contradicts my faith and the Lord said to ignore any message that contradicted His message, even if it were to be an angel. Both of these I know to exist in the world and I feel as though most encounters could be classified as one of those two. 

3 hours ago, Deus said:

I have encountered a ghost. I was staying overnight at a friends old farmhouse and I woke late at night to see an apparition gliding from the door to the sofa I was sleeping in. It was an old bearded man. He came to the sofa bent over and looked at me before leaving the same way he came.

For this, since there was no understood message (at least from what I understand of your statement) the classification would rely on your faith. If you are a man of faith and this led you to question your trust in God or in your spirituality, then I would be inclined to see this as a Demonic appearance. Should this however have strengthened your belief in God by forcing you to come to terms with the fact your mind cannot understand the ways in which God works, than it could very well have been Heavenly. 

Basically, I believe that Heavenly and Demonic beings come to us in human forms so that we can understand their messages and that by understanding the message or the effects of the message help us to understand which kind of existence we have been exposed to. 

And please, by all means, if anyone has thoughts or comments about what I said please roast away!

^ losing

yee

5 minutes ago, Robert E Lee said:

IC plays pokemon go/wants to. Are you saying you are no longer his favorite?

I most certainly am!

Anything for the Master

Anything for my God

Anything for my baby

Anything for My King, the O' Great and Mighty Eternal Citadel of Power and Might, who over extends himself in war so as to be a martyr for his faith in The Knights Radiant. 

You people are sad. 

I have to. Even if I wasn't a huge fan of the last several books/movies. It is part of the series and I must have it to complete the collection.

6 hours ago, Albgast Vulpes said:

Mehhhh. I guess. Does everyone know how to make characters?

I believe so, I think we had about 4-5 people already make characters using the same program

On 7/9/2016 at 8:02 PM, japan77 said:

What we need to do is change the voting system to make third parties viable at the state-wide/national level. as the system is currently set up, the US gov't only has the capacity to have 2 running parties, as people refuse to vote for their preferred candidate to avoid putting another candidate in power. What we should have is making people rank the potential candidates that go above a certain polling threshold(5%?), while still allowing for write-ins. This makes third parties viable, as now once the third party concedes, the vote transfers to your next pick, which allows, for example, people who want to support the Green party not having to risk electing Donald Trump.

I wouldn't mind that. the required percentage of popular support definitely needs to be lower than 15%! And I wouldn't mind seeing the Federal Elections Committee abolished being that they are unconstitutional in the first place. Anyone polling 5% or more nationwide should be in the debates and on the ballots in every state nationwide. 

I also wouldn't mind a multi-vote elimination style voting. Everyone votes their top two picks, bottom candidate gets dropped, everyone votes their next top two, bottom gets dropped and so on. This would ensure the president has the majority of the nation behind them on the final ballot unlike an all-out election between four people where it is possible to have a president chosen in the House who only secured 25% of the popular support. 

This may or may not be how a caucus in the US works, I think it's something like this and I like it. It would encourage multi-party coalitions. So, for example, if the Republican (Trump), Democrat (Clinton), Independent (Sanders), Libertarian (Johnson), and Green (Stein) candidates were all somehow equal in popular support nationwide it wouldn't be that big of a stretch to see a coalition between the Independent and Green parties with a Sanders-Stein ticket. 

I feel like a system like this would allow for a better expression of the nations real political views.

44 minutes ago, Albgast Vulpes said:

I've Dm'd a few Psuedo DnD Games. I'm more so a lore dude

Would you mind being the DM for a short game? I guess for the first one it will just be the first 4-5 people to report in then we can make a thread (if it's going to be on here) or make a new slack channel (if we can all get on at the same time for that)

8 hours ago, Piratemonkey said:

Third party steals votes from democratic candidate, less popular republican candidate wins

Third parties do not "steal" votes from anyone unless every citizen has signed a contract to one party or the other. They do not "steal votes" they win supporters. They enable voters to express their political opinions which in turn reflects the political landscape of the nation as a whole. 

If Sanders endorses Clinton I will lose every bit of respect I have for him. He has reiterated time and time again that he is "a man of principle and not party" and although I do not agree with his platform, I have nothing but respect for him. Respect for his transparency and honesty and strong convictions in the face of a strong opponent such as Clinton. But if he endorses Clinton at the last minute, he throws away all of his convictions and betrays the thousands of loyal supporters he has massed at his side. If he bows to the two-party system when he has been playing the whole game as an outsider then what has he really done? He will have proved nothing other than that establishment must win every single time and that is something I can never stand for. 

I defend third-party voting because in the immediate two elections after a successful third-party run, no, they will not win. But what this does allow is the growth of ideas that challenge the Republican and Democratic gridlock on American politics. In the long run, twenty or thirty years down the road, this gradual growth can feasibly challenge the two party system and as soon as one more party gets into the mix solidly, it will open a floodgate for people to express their actual political opinions. In that day and age it will no longer be considered "not realistic or even logical" to vote third party because they have a chance. And I look forward to that very likely future. That is not idealism, it is logical optimism. Because it can happen. 

I will admit, Sanders potential abandoning of his supporters and bowing to Clinton and the establishment does make it extremely unlikely for any other third party to get any electors. He is the crazy-haired old man that 25% of American voters are in love with and if anyone could open up the floodgates, it would be him. If  Sanders would just run third party then I would say it is very likely to see Electors casting votes outside of the Republican and Democrat parties. And if he was winning over presumptive Democrat Electors then moderate-conservative voters and Electors would not feel so odd casting votes for a borderline fringe man like Gov. Gary Johnson. But Sanders bowing out of the race will jeopardize almost any progress away from the establishment which the supporters of Sanders, Trump, Stein, and Johnson all wish to see. 

Sanders holds in his hands the power to make long-lasting change in the system he has said he abhors. He can change the course of American history on July 25th if he chooses and it may not go the way he wants it to this election year, it may not go his way in four more years, but what he has the power to do is clear a space on the front of the American political stage for candidates such as Johnson and Stein. That's not being "Nader 2.0" that is called taking the steps to be the change you wish to see in the world. Without him though, the change he claimed to want to make is going to be very very slow. 

2 hours ago, LordPenguin said:

However, I'm surprised you gave Sanders Fla. plz elab

Very solid swing state, 50-50 split Dem and Rep and personally I think it's more likely it will go Democrat this year because too many people in swing states are downright scared of Trump. The demographics of Fl are also way wrong for Trump, he needs more blue-collar, low education, disgruntled american voices and I believe FL is just too diverse for his common rhetoric to make a huge appeal in the general election campaign. Even in the primaries he only secured 45% against a shattered enemy. So Trump was out of the race. Down to Sanders, Clinton, and Johnson in Florida. Florida is a big state and although the Libertarian party's platform can appeal to a LOT of people, I don't think Johnson would be able to focus on a swing state as much, he has to work on sneaking out other small 50-50 states with a less complex race going on. So Johnson is prety much out except for maybe 10 percent of the vote.

Next, I looked at a few different sources and even still FL looked like a dead heat between Clinton and Sanders. It was a toss-up and I just think that Sanders with his outside of the establishment rhetoric like he played after getting screwed in Nevada would go far to make him more appealing than the "same old-same old" democratic establishment figure. Trump and Brexit have proven that the populist appeal and fear/shock-producing rhetoric is the way to win over the silenced voters who secretly hate the establishment. and in a four-way race for the White House, most establishment and traditional voter practices are really up in the air. 

So, Trump would scare voters, it would be foolish of Johnson to invest a lot of time in Florida, and suddently a four-way race  has become a one-on-one between Clinton and Sanders, I think Sanders' populist appeal would simply stir up Floridians more. Sanders carries Florida by little more than a Gore-Bush margin but I think he might carry it nonetheless. 

I hope my train of thought wasn't too hard to follow

36 minutes ago, Piratemonkey said:

There was likely a reason he went bankrupt 4 times, considering how much money he has now. And when you're rolling big bucks like Trump, with how much money he handles and pays out to various of his businesses, a million dollar loan is very small. People just like to shit on other people without basis.

Exactly. When someone with investments as large as Trump get the slightest feeling that one investment might be able to get bad, you transition funds, focus, and reinvest that revenue elsewhere and let it die so that when the hard time does hit, it can go under with minimum cost. And then you can turn around and invest somewhere else that has more security for the future. And the fact that Trump was given 1 million dollars and now has a net worth of 4.5 billion USD, that speaks volumes. He has increased his wealth 4,500x. If I started a business with 1,000 that ended up being worth 4,500,000 I would get praised as a great businessman. The same is true for Trump, just on a much larger scale, he took what he had and when it would have been easy for an everyday Joe to mindlessly invest and squander the 1 million, he multiplied it 4,500 times over. 

43 minutes ago, Piratemonkey said:

Honestly if I were to vote for a third party candidate it would be Jill Stein. She seems like an honest, genuine person just like Sanders. I'm a huge fan of her environmental policies and her social policies. But I know she won't win so I'm voting for Clinton. Gary Johnson would be the preferred Republican candidate and honestly if he got the nomination instead of Trump, I would seriously consider voting Republican this year. Why not give a libertarian a go at the White House. Their social policy and foreign policy are great.

"But I know she won't win" the downfall of all third parties in America. If enough people voted third party as their conscious led them then the third parties would become one of the multi-party system. We have a two-party system because every year more and more people vote for them because their third-arty guy can't win. At the very least, when a greater percentage of the population votes third-party it sends a message to the two big parties that, hey, people aren't actually 100% happy with our stances. A movement toward third parties will force the hands of the Republican and Democratic parties to modify their platforms in an attempt to retain the voters' favour or risk losing them to party that does adapt. Third party voting forces the two parties to change or risk becoming obsolete, voting is the best method Americans have to impact the platform of America and too many throw that ability away for the sake of the "lesser of two evils" and settle for someone who does not support them. That, that is a wasted vote.

49 minutes ago, Piratemonkey said:

I just really can't take Trump seriously based on his speeches and the way he presents himself. Maybe he wouldn't be the worst president, but he'd be an embarrassment nonetheless.

This I understand but no one can deny that his fast-talking belligerence attracts large swaths of the American peoples' attention. He has done a good job of distancing himself from the party for his "taking down the White House from the outside." Honestly, it is his personality that I am most wary of, like I said earlier, his policy will be restrained by actual presidential ability and congressional checks. 

I cannot imagine why he wouldn't run third party. I understand the deadlines and all are getting really tight but right now, before he endorses Clinton he could easily secure several states. 

And I think that Johnson could perhaps win a few, low elector votes if he really campaigns. He is an awkward, quirky guy that is far from a typical politician. If Sanders does not run as an independent, I will admit, there is a much smaller chance that Johnson will carry any states because he is less of a populist figure. But I think we could see him taking places such as ND, ID, and WY but that is only IF he adjusts his campaign strategy. Right now he has said he is running a "50-state campaign" and that isn't going to get him anything, it'll make him a Perot in 2000 and people will call him a spoiler candidate. He can carry a a few states and if the trend keeps up he might be able to secure a few low elector blue states as well which might help block Clinton if Trump gets his head on straight

7 minutes ago, Piratemonkey said:

Patrick, I'm going to say something similar. I've studied Clinton's platform and I respect her for a lot of her ideas. Does she dress weird? Yah. Does she seem a bit irresponsible? Yah. But I agree with most of her platform so I'm going to vote for her. So if we're talking about what these people say they will do as president, you can make a case for both. But the reality of the fact is that Trump presents himself like a blabbering idiot while Clinton at least tries to have a presidential aura about her. After all, she actually knows what she's talking about because she's experienced the White House multiplie times. Trump on the other hand doesn't know what he's talking about at all and will probably be relying on his Vice President to do a lot of his bidding

This is something I can respect. I abhor people who vote based on party, or the persona of the candidate (gender, race, etc) but you know why you're voting for her and can cite reasons other than "Trumps a Mean Rich White Guy!" and my personal pet peeves "small loan of a million dollars" and "he went bankrupt 4 times" or however many it was. Anyone can read those things on twitter but that doesn't make them solid reasons. 

Thank you for being an educated voter and despite my disagreement with your choice, I will respect it and limit how much I try to persuade you to vote for Gov Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. 

2 hours ago, Ernsters said:

 

  Hide contents

my vote is to Gary Johnson.

 

Good man! Gov. Gary Johnson 2016!

I hope you find the time to read my novel on my own election prediction sometime

The two presumptive nominees, Hillary Clinton (D) and Donald Trump (R), have historically low approval rating for this point in the election year. If it was between those two alone that I believe it would be a very close race between Clinton and Trump. The Electoral College is stacked to favour the Democratic Party a little this election year but I think the populace is underestimating just how much damage Trump can do to opponents when backed into a corner, remember, this is the kind of thing he has done all of his life. That would balance the playing field and it would be a toss up. 

However, unlike many elections in the recent past, 2016 is not a two-party election. There are at least one very viable third-party candidate, possibly three. Those I wish to point out would be the Libertarian ticket of Gov. Gary Johnson and Gov. Bill Weld, Green candidate Jill Stein, and Independent Bernard Sanders. The requirements in place currently to reach the presidential debate stage is 15% of the popular vote (as an average of five accredited polling institutions in the US) which as a major building block for a successful campaign. At least two of the possible third party candidates should be able to reach this minimum by the deadline.  

The Libertarian Party has made great strides this election cycle by getting on the ballot in all 50 states as well as so far having approximately 10-11% of the popular support in the nation. Between the Presidential candidate former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld have a stronger political history than either presumptive nominee from the two "big" parties. Bill Weld was also a Prosecutor and is a charismatic fund-raiser. They are running on a campaign of "fiscally conservative and socially 'I don't give a damn!'" (according to Johnson) which they argue would please most Americans. 

Green Party candidate Jill Stein has also grown greatly in the polls this election cycle. Last I saw they were polling around 4-6% of the popular vote. From what I understand, the Greens run on a social justice, equality, feminism and decentralization. They are a liberal third party. Stein has been a strong candidate for Massachusetts governor twice but has fallen short both times. 

And Bernard Sanders,  still a part of the Democratic Party scene, is a possible third party candidate. Sanders is a self-proclaimed socialist wishing to follow much in the footsteps of successful European nations already taking on his radical progressive ideas. He has expressed little loyalty to the Democratic party saying things to the effect of 'you have to play for one team or the other to even have a chance' and 'you have to be a billionaire to run as an independent and I am not billionaire'. Despite both he and his wife's denial of a potential run for the election in 2016 as an Independent these things do not show anything other than his detest for the Democratic Party. He already has well in excess of 15% of the popular vote. 

I predict that first, Clinton and Trump will get their respective parties' nominations. Shortly thereafter Bernard Sanders will announce he will continue seeking the presidency in 2016 on an Independent. He will have no problem reaching and exceeding the 15% hurdle and neither with Gov Gary Johnson. Both will get entrance into the debates despite the Republican and Democratic Parties' (and their nominees') very vocal objections to such as uprooting of American democratic tradition. Jill Stein will not make it to the debate stage but remain a growing voice as the two party system continues to be challenged. 

When it comes time for the election Sanders and Johnson will easily be able to block either of the two big parties from reaching the 270 Electors needed for the White House. a couple of states expected to vote Democrat this year would likely vote for Sanders at least partially. States predicted to vote Democrat that overwhelmingly voted for Sanders in their primaries could reasonably expected to vote for Sanders due to his energized campaign and zealous young supporters. Likewise, several traditionally conservative states, ones in which Trump preformed poorly in during the primary race, could be expected to vote for Gary Johnson as a strong supporter of military and conservative spending. 

When Johnson and Sanders do block the Democratic and Republican nominees, the decision for the next President will be left up to the House of Representatives as per the Constitution. This is where things get even harder to predict because both Johnson and Sanders should both receive between 15 and 20% of the popular vote leaving at most only 70% of the population to split between Trump and Clinton. I would expect in this scenario probably a near even split of 35-35% because although Clinton has the advantage over Trump, Sanders will claim more of the liberal vote than Johnson will of the conservative. That would leave a near balance between the Republicans and Democrats. Still, in the House no one is the definitive winner of the election. The House will be mostly Republicans but as the US has seen over the past four years, the only thing a large majority in the House accomplishes is fractures within the party structure. There are just too many differences between Northern Rep, Southern Rep, Mid-West Rep, and then there's Dr. Rand Paul.

Once the vote comes to the House I would expect that a large number would be split between Trump --party loyalty-- and Johnson --sacrificing the conservative social for the sake of blocking Clinton or Sanders-- which would be a fierce debate in which Trump may or may not get more votes. On the smaller, Democratic side of the House, I would predict that almost all of the representatives would vote against Sanders and his radical socialist agenda and instead settle for Clinton as the establishment candidate, despite the baggage she brings too the Democrats with a few outliers casting votes for Johnson's socially inclusive platform.. If Sanders secures a solid number of votes in the House then I might be possible, with the smallest majority, for Johnson to become President as a compromise between the social agenda of the Democrats, Sanders Independent, and the military heavy and fiscally conservative Republicans, but it would be an extremely close race between Johnson and Clinton. It is far more likely that the House will stick with the candidate they know better despite and inadequacies. 

By the end of November 35% of the United States will likely be celebrating as Hillary Clinton is announced as the next president of the United States. The remaining population will be understandably upset and fractured behind their failed candidates. Soon after election Johnson supporters and then much later Sanders supporters will relax and support Clinton as president. Trump supporters however will remain heated for quite some time and the Republican party will try to distance themselves from him as he does the same to them, both blaming each other for a broken campaign leading to failure. 

Below, I have generated a 2016 Electoral College map depicting the idea scenario for Johnson (pink) and Sanders (light blue) to definitively block Trump (red) and Clinton (dark blue). This would show Johnson holding about 14% of the Electors from states that Trump got less than a 50% popular support in. Some subjective calls had to be made in states from early in the race because so many candidates were in the primaries. One such state was Texas, although Trump lost to Cruz I would still expect Texas to back the Republican candidate and not a third party. Any traditional/expected blue states in which Clinton polled less than 45-50% in the primaries/caucuses I awarded to Sanders. This method ended with Sanders possessing approximately 19% of the Electors including Florida which was a special case somewhat like Texas. Florida really depends on which district and region of Florida voters have a better turnout this year but I gave the state to Sanders.  

I will reiterate, the idea behind this map is not accuracy but rather the ideal scenario for Johnson and Sanders as third party candidates. As the election approaches and people are realizing there are more than two candidates, many of them superior to Trump or Clinton, I think that Electors will be encouraged to break the mold of the typical two-party vote casting.  I believe it is entirely possible and likely that this election year will see a third party take at least one state's Electors and not in the way Governor Wallace did in 1968 securing 8% of the Electorate, this likely will not be a movement isolated to a small geographical area. In fact, even if Sanders does not run as a third party it is possible for Johnson to take a state or two and block either party from reaching the magic 270. Even though he will not likely win his home state he may secure enough to shake the two-party system's foundation enough to pave the way for future third-party candidates to dismantle the two-party control and achieve the presidency. 

I believe that Donald Trump is a completely viable candidate. He has made his mark on conservative politics despite not being a conservative, he is a polar capitalist with moderate views on a lot of other issues. He lays on heavy with the rhetoric that is being judged as "racist" even though Muslims are not a race and neither are Mexicans. I do not agree with a lot of his rhetoric but I have studied his platform as much as I can and I personally do not have much of a problem with a lot of it. 

In regards to a Trump presidency, personally, the chances of that are fading fast but not because Trump is still being Trump. It is fading for two reasons. One, the predicted spread of the Electoral College here in the United States was already stacked against ANY republican candidate. Even with Ben Carson or Jeb Bush, a lot of Republicans ideal cadidates (too bad they just couldn't take the heat) it would have been very tough for a Republican to win the election in 2016. And two, there currently is a surge of strong third party support. With both Trump and Clinton's approvals in the upper 30's or low 40's depending on what source you use, it shouldn't be a surprise that the Libertarians (Gov. Gary Johnson-Gov. Bill Weld) and the Greens (Stein) are making broad leaps in the polls. Between them they hold about 17% of the popular support. 

Trump will definitely get the Republican nomination on the 18th. Hillary will get the Democratic. And with so much up in the air what with the 3rd party candidates, it is extremely unlikely that Trump will get the 270 Electors needed to secure the Presidency. EVEN IF HE DID, I think that Trump will be more malleable than either Congress or Trump himself cares to admit. DC doesn't like him but everyone seems to forget that the United States has a system of Checks and balances built into the government structure. Trump will not start WW3, if that starts anywhere it will be due to the NATO-Russian aggression in Eastern Europe or the US/Pacific Nations-China aggression in the South China Sea right now.

In the later, there isn't much Trump could do that Obama isn't already doing. Deploying more ships and effectively "flexing the American muscles" at China while still toying, manipulating, and otherwise intruding with the smaller nations contesting with China. The only thing Trump could add to the mix would be his "Stand Tall and Tough!" rhetoric which I don't think will either deter nor expedite China's inevitable military annexation of the entire region followed by the ousting of the US and other nations. And call me crazy but even though we shouldn't be over there in other people's business in the first place, If we keep up this destructive policy of drawing lines in the sand for Russia and China and then letting them cross those lines without consequence then we are just telling the nations of the world to stop taking us seriously. I don't agree with intervening but if we must then we have better not back down at the last minute and let Russia and China walk all over us. It is pathetic. And in that way I personally think Trump would handle the situation well because should he get in the White House China and Russia will learn quickly that our fast-talking and belligerent President doesn't want to play games. 

 I have my own prediction of how this election will turn out that I posted here. But overall, although Trump's route to the White House is getting smaller and smaller, I don't think he would be the worst president we have ever had or could have and I do not think he will start WW3. 

12 hours ago, LordPenguin said:

I think that everyone should try to be a major character in someway (General, Governor/People's Herald, Diplomat, King, etc.). I like the currency idea because it gives bigger nations some extra power, but not too much. I am biased because i am a baby nation

What currency system?

Also, I lay claim to a district in the foothills bounding the Knights Radiant northern river border with Mensa HQ. My nine city district is on the southeastern coast of the small lake. 

Against the advice of the King, my cities have been slow to demilitarize after our most recent armed conflict. 

And my capital's grandest suites are always open to you Diplomat @Kayser, anything for an honourable representative of the Knights Radiant. 

What if we were all governors of districts and municipalities directly related to the size of our PnW nation? We could be like a commonwealth of nation-states with a King to unite us all. That way we all retain a degree of autonomy, we all have the power to create real change that we wouldn't if we were not a govt member in-game, and we can better form coalitions with our friends in the alliance (neighbor districts in the RP)

Thoughts on that?

What the heck is going on? I want to bondsmith this thing up!

22 hours ago, LordPenguin said:

Basically, you redirect some of the water into a small offshoot. The water should then drop just a little bit, creating a difference in height. This will trap the fish and then they will just swim around in your small pond until you catch them.

OOOOOOOoooooooooooohhhhhhhhhh! That makes sense. Cool, you're the man!