• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT12| The last days of the Republic

Status
Not open for further replies.

SexyFish

Banned
It's on the frontpage. You can't miss it.
yqnyzfn.png


It's not much of anything.

God bless America.

edit: Oh.
 
I know it's pop culture but I would really love to know about Curt Schilling's history on GAF. What happened?

He tried to make "The greatest MMO" since he was a WoW nut and wanted in on that cash. Ended up spending all of his money and defrauding the Rhode Island State Government in business loans that he couldn't pay back, and fucking over a ton of employees by just closing up shop out of the blue, including instantly shutting down health plans, etc. In that time the only game that his company released ws Kingdoms of Amalur.

And he was on GAF for a while hocking his games.
 
Doesn't have to be a bombshell, all it has to do is show a constant stream of him being a fucking pig and the media will run with it and suffocate his campaign
 
What a world. Brooke Baldwin with the accurate reaction for that one.



...he's not wrong, in this context.

I looked this up to better inform myself and found this Politifact article about the 'gunshow loophole' from earlier this year. Can someone who is much more knowledgeable of policy actually explain what Clinton's plan is when she says 'close the gunshow loop hole' since it doesn't seem as clear cut as the term makes it sound.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Cold sweats and shit
I forgot the other angle to Texas.

Whenever the GOP loses an election, there's a hearty round of "Texas should secede!" to be found on the right-wing radio and in their online forums. "Texas is mighty! She can go it alone!"

With Texas blue, that daydream of a country for conservatives is gone. "We'll flee to Alabama!" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
 

benjipwns

Banned
There is now no longer anything Trump can do that I would consider bad.
YOU WERE WRONG:
During the boardroom session that decided which team did the better job transforming its artist, Trump turned the conversation sharply ― and at times, uncomfortably ― to West’s physical appearance, specifically her skin.

“I assume you’re gonna leave this off, don’t put this shit on the show, you know. But her skin, her skin sucks, okay?” he says, according to the transcript. “I mean her skin, she needs some serious fuckin’ dermatology.”

Cyndi Lauper, who headed the team that managed West, interjected to explain that they used “dry stuff” ― presumably, makeup ― and said Trump was objecting to something that was “not her skin.” But he remained unimpressed.

“Fuck,” he proclaimed. “That’s Emily, that’s what I’m hearing about? Let me see the other one. I assume you’re not putting this on the show. ‘Cause I don’t wanna destroy the kid’s career.”
I think I remember this episode.
 

Boke1879

Member
That article just confirms that that's who Trump is.

But I highly doubt that's anything close to what's out there. Probably going to get tons of stories like this because no one is going to want to get scooped.
 
He tried to make "The greatest MMO" since he was a WoW nut and wanted in on that cash. Ended up spending all of his money and defrauding the Rhode Island State Government in business loans that he couldn't pay back, and fucking over a ton of employees by just closing up shop out of the blue, including instantly shutting down health plans, etc. In that time the only game that his company released ws Kingdoms of Amalur.

And he was on GAF for a while hocking his games.

This is amazing. The guy is really popular for his terrible, terrible, but completely sincere tweets. Finding out he was once on GAF and has a history here is like finding a ruined American flag on Mars. This can't be possible, this is incredible, it can't be true... and yet, it is.
 

Joeytj

Banned
That article just confirms that that's who Trump is.

But I highly doubt that's anything close to what's out there. Probably going to get tons of stories like this because no one is going to want to get scooped.

Which is why HuffPo went with their "IT Begins" headline, lol.

This is just the beginning. Hillary knew it yesterday, Paul Ryan knows it now, even Trump knows it.
 

FLEABttn

Banned
speaking of twitter:

did we post this one? because its a crime if it flew in under the radar

schilling_zpssdgy9m3k.png

This is one of those things where they take the words of something, divorce them from the context and colloquial meaning, and say that we don't know what we're talking about because we didn't use the NRA approved nomenclature. Like silencers vs suppressors. Or clips vs magazines.

Also I totally missed the autocorrect?
 
Years of watching on in horror at the state of the Republican party, only to see it culminate in this tempest of torment for this party. It is impossible to watch this without glee.

I feel like going out with a whimper and not a complete and total implosion wouldn't have been as satisfying.
 

kevin1025

Banned
I looked this up to better inform myself and found this Politifact article about the 'gunshow loophole' from earlier this year. Can someone who is much more knowledgeable of policy actually explain what Clinton's plan is when she says 'close the gunshow loop hole' since it doesn't seem as clear cut as the term makes it sound.

I should add, I was making light of the misspelling, I don't know much of anything about gun show loopholes!

Isn't it something like some people at these shows are able to sell but it's specifically licensed vendors/people?

hilarious that an orange peel would criticize anyone else's skin

Obviously you aren't a skin man.

Skin lampshades, that's the next oppo.
 

Amir0x

Banned
I feel like going out with a whimper and not a complete and total implosion wouldn't have been as satisfying.
Yeah i mean it sucks that there are enough racist and misogynistic Americans to get him through primaries, but then again it kind of doesnt now if this is the end result
 
I should add, I was making light of the misspelling, I admit I don't know about gun show loopholes!

Isn't it something like some people at these shows are able to sell but it's specifically licensed vendors/people?

It seems to me that the question that needs to be answer is where is the cutoff? How far do we have to go when saying 'You need a license and must perform background checks' for gun sales? Is it someone who only even just sells one or two guns at a gun show? What if they were to just sell two of their own guns somewhere completely different? How hard do we enforce these laws and what's the bare minimum requirements for someone to require these regulations. I want to follow that up by saying I'm in favor of much stricter gun control than we have right now, but I think the implementation details of such a law are interesting.
 
I looked this up to better inform myself and found this Politifact article about the 'gunshow loophole' from earlier this year. Can someone who is much more knowledgeable of policy actually explain what Clinton's plan is when she says 'close the gunshow loop hole' since it doesn't seem as clear cut as the term makes it sound.

Any individual can sell a gun to another individual without any background check, or basically anything. It's common at gun shows. Gun stores and vendors usually are required to have background checks. So I guess it's not a "gunshow loophole", but rather an exception for private party sales.
 

rjinaz

Member
This is one of those things where they take the words of something, divorce them from the context and colloquial meaning, and say that we don't know what we're talking about because we didn't use the NRA approved nomenclature. Like silencers vs suppressors. Or clips vs magazines.

As a gun owner myself, I love when I see that. "if you don't even know the proper terms for guns, then you have no right to be talking about gun ownership in the first place!"

OK.
 
It seems to me that the question that needs to be answer is where is the cutoff? How far do we have to go when saying 'You need a license and must perform background checks' for gun sales? Is it someone who only even just sells one or two guns at a gun show? What if they were to just sell two of their own guns somewhere completely different? How hard do we enforce these laws and what's the bare minimum requirements for someone to require these regulations. I want to follow that up by saying I'm in favor of much stricter gun control than we have right now, but I think the implementation details of such a law are interesting.

Why would we need a limit? If you need to sell a gun, sell it to a vendor or a licensed buyer. The fact that any felon, terrorist, etc., can just message someone on Craigslist and grab an AR15 is petrifying, to be frank.
 

iavi

Member
I'm still hoping for one irrevocable implosion in the trump campaign. That rumored apprentice tape with him saying N* would be it.

Set precedent.
 
Any individual can sell a gun to another individual without any background check, or basically anything. It's common at gun shows. Gun stores and vendors usually are required to have background checks. So I guess it's not a "gunshow loophole", but rather an exception for private party sales.

It's real big at flea markets in Ohio.

These people are dealers for the most part. It's a way of making a living as a gun dealer without any kind of oversight or regulation. You can sell to anybody without a background check or even a paper trail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom