If that was true, Bernie Sanders would be the nominee.

...because those are examples of whistleblowers revealing to the American public all the ways the system is corrupt and working against the best interests of its people.

Clinton is currently a major agent of the corrupt system working against the best interests of the people.

Furthermore,

Yet by not indicting her, she is about to power through to the general where Republicans will be able to carpet bomb her with the ammunition this whole fiasco has brought about.

Short of Hillary doing even more cheating, Trump has a pretty decent chance of winning thanks to the way the DNC has fractured their party in half. Bernie was treated poorly and the election was railroaded towards an inevitable Hillary win, and as a result some people are pledging to leave the DNC and start a new party, and many want him to run third anyway, while others are preparing to vote Johnson or Stein. Hillary is not even interested in offering any concessions to Sanders supporters, nevermind the fact that many would not trust her to keep her word anyway.

The irony is that so many expected the GOP to be the party that would cheat and pull shenanigans and deny the will of their constituents to avert a Trump nomination, and yet not only did they grudgingly accept it, it was the DNC that behaved more this way, opening the floodgates for all kinds of remarks from the right about commies and Leninists.

Me, at this point I'm cynical enough to assume that the real billionaires such as Charles Koch are going to beat Trump into submission, or make him go away, as things are further railroaded towards Hillary's coronation.

If you must use FB use the Tinfoil for Facebook app or access the site through your browser.

There is a huge "Bernie or Bust" demographic of the Sanders campaign that is so disgusted with the dirt on Hillary that they're willing to vote for damn near anyone else (sometimes in sensible ways, sometimes in poorly informed ways). It doesn't help matters that Hillary does not act interested in winning over Sanders supporters, as seen at a recent town hall where when asked the question she simply boasted about how she was the one who was winning. While many democrats will be holding their nose and voting for her, the newer ones and the more resolute ones have vowed that they won't, even if Senator Sanders himself endorses Hillary.

It is looking to be a grim election if it boils down to the choice between a hawkish establishment politician that will push the TPP, and a billionaire (or faux-billionaire depending on who you ask) that complains the Geneva Convention holds back the military's potential brutality.

Greed and individualism most likely.

A few weeks ago Steam started redirecting activity to a message about giving them a mobile phone number that you had to oblige/skip to get to what you were trying to reach. Then a couple of weeks later it got more aggressive. Then they started offering small discounts to anyone who gave a number. Then came the warning that without giving up a phone number they were going to hold purchased items (virtual items like trading cards and TF2 hats) for three days. Even if their intentions were simply to reduce scamming, it felt like a whole lot of pushy coercion.

For a game that runs any real amount of time a GM eventually has to. For very simplified systems the rules are more open ended and vague, which inevitably means more responsibility on the GM to make judgements. But, even on a very bloated and complicated system like D&D 3.5 edition there are plenty of cases where the rules don't cover bizarre technicalities or overlap in ways that simply won't make sense. Off the top of my head, a rogue can pull out a tower shield, gain total cover from standing behind it, and automatically succeed at a Hide check. There are nigh-impossible shenanigans a wizard with a very low CON score could attempt to wind up with a higher amount of HP than what's normally possible (though it would be unlikely to happen and wouldn't be worth the trouble). And there are a number of rules, especially in the expansion books, that straight up say to consult with your GM for a decision on what the benefits of your choice would actually be.

Of course, I'm sure you speak of Gygaxian bullies that create meatgrinder deathtraps for his amusement or excessively railroady ones who behave like the DM in this comic, but the fact of the matter is that someone needs to run the material, and that someone needs to know all the secrets without giving them away and make judgements for edge cases in the rules or to balance things out for a more enjoyable experience. Those last two words are important, because it can be very easy for GMs to become selfish or mean.

I notice a lot of uncreative D&D players like to have their cake and eat it too in this way. D&D is about going into a dungeon, stabbing a dragon in the face and taking its money, but people want to feel righteous about doing it which leads to the rise of a bunch of pretenses about heroism. But, a lot of people just aren't that good (nor do they truly want to be) and would prefer to be themselves, yet focused on the Just Evil races which have basically been flagged as targets you don't have to think twice about the morality of wiping out. Creatures that are ugly, were born irredeemably evil, and have nice things you'd like for yourself; creatures just made for falling onto your swords.

In all fairness, in my early DMing days I'd quickly discovered that morally ambiguous scenarios descended into party in-fighting really quickly, so if you want a thinker's D&D campaign it would be wise to make sure your players are all on the same page enough to avoid that sort of party unmaking.

I enjoyed the game but I have to concur that it was extremely heavy handed in its approach. You are in a setting where several monsters are openly and actively trying to kill you, who will yet also be outraged and begrudged if you defend yourself against these aggressors. Worse, it is not enough to jump through hoops to avoid killing, you have to go out of your way to befriend boss monsters in order to progress on a pacifistic path. Dishonored was much more my style for overcoming adversaries without killing them.

They already have. When the app comes out there'll be plenty more where that came from, I'm sure.

Removing the hostile part of that would still result in sufficient chaos. The whole 72 virgins pitch wouldn't be nearly as much of a sell if the young men are having their fill of Lucy Liu-Bots.

That too is the absurdity of trying to place restrictions on sexbots. The people who will most use them are the people who weren't especially sought after anyway. The smooth alpha types were never going to spend money on sexbots, they can attract anyone they care to for sexual purposes. Why should anyone care how the bottom-of-the-barrel demographic get their fixes if they bother nobody, and with this technology will be even more likely to leave alone the people who are repulsed by them?
 
...that said, I admit that I'm pretty certain that if the technology is allowed to develop unhindered, sexbots will be just like video games, personal computers, and the internet. In the beginning it will be a niche community of enthusiasts willing to navigate all the quirks and conditions of owning one, and once the technology gets sufficiently advanced and convenient, it will become more accepted and possibly even widespread.

I think the goal post started in this thread was that callously killing innocents and pissing on other cultures makes a faction seem more monstrous and inhuman in the eyes of the spectators. In fighting the people who do that, the US needs to take care to be better than their opponents, not simply mightier.

The psychological examination of terrorism has shown the good news that it's not really linked to how poor, religious, or mentally unstable the people are. The poorest countries are not the ones that create the most terrorism, many terrorists are educated and middle class or higher (with respect to the countries they came from, anyway), and unsurprisingly, a lot of terrorists aren't devoutly religious. Terror cells require secrecy and organization, so while crazy guys might seem easier to persuade to do crazy things, they have the drawback of being a liability to whatever plan is being hatched.

The bad news is that the most common link is entirely too common: angry young males ranging from their late adolescence to their 20s. The demographic that commits the most violent crime of any variety. Doing something about angry young men who feel they have nothing to lose and are willing to hurt people for a cause is going to be a bit complicated.