Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: sluissa on August 10, 2019, 11:52:43 am

I'm still not seeing where "Biden has the best chance of beating Trump" holds any water at all. His polling is above the other primary candidates, but it's basically been a downward trend since the race started. He's running almost entirely on name recognition. He can't even break 30% reliably anymore whereas a few months ago he was polling in the 40s.

There's some argument that Sanders and Warren are currently splitting the vote for the people who'd vote for either of them. There's also an argument that Sanders voters wouldn't necessarily go for Warren (or even any other Democrat)... but combine their numbers and you often hit and exceed Biden's numbers. Not to mention the other candidates that will eventually have to drop out and where their supporters will go.

Biden is far from the worst candidate, and name recognition does help, but I just don't see what else he has to go on. If he's up against Trump it's going to come down to "How bad can you make Trump look compared to Biden" rather than Biden actually being the candidate anyone especially wants. That's a valid strategy to win, but it's not a pleasant reality to live in.

I don't see how any of them could have a strong, definitive ability to beat Trump.

A lot of that's going to depend on how the electoral college plays out. His approval numbers aren't anything to smile about, so just about anyone without serious baggage SHOULD be able to beat him. But I could see him edging out enough votes in the right combination of states to pull off a win again. I do think any of the current top 5 candidates could run a decent campaign just by playing it straight and trying not to say anything stupid, but I do think it'll help if we could get one of the candidates that has people actually excited about them.

I've said it before, but people show up to a Harris, Warren, or Sanders rally, and they tend to leave excited. People show up to a Biden rally and they tend to leave feeling the same they did walking in, or worse. He just doesn't excite people. He doesn't leave people with a feeling of confidence in his abilities or even his personality. He's acceptable... at BEST.

If you're desperate, or the terrain is good to you, a sledgehammer does good work on an armored car. It's not 100% reliable, but pretty good. It helps if you have the TU to run back in cover if you need to, but It's a solid enough chance I risk it regularly.

For a while, I was loading wheeled machine guns on my craft as makeshift door guns. I"d rarely haul them far from the craft, but they were amazingly effective at clearing the landing zone, poking vision holes in terrain, and just generally being a decent source of damage even from across the map.

They became less vital, and while I still have a few laying around that might get use once in a while, they were largely surpassed once I started getting weapons of similar power that could be hauled around easier. They were also amazing at base defense. Anyone can hold a chokepoint with one of those even a barely trained peasant.

Inflation while wages have stagnated makes a difference as well. Education costs are going up, cost of living is going up. Wages are staying the same. Where before people could take the hit to their paycheck to pay off the loans and still manage a decent life, that loan payment has slowly eaten away at the non-necessities until for some people it's become a choice between food, power, or a loan payment.

Also slightly unrelated I'm hearing arguments from people against minimum wage increases that there are some jobs that just aren't meant to support a person. (specifically the burger flipping jobs, but there were other examples brought up.) Like, some jobs are meant for kids in high school who don't need to pay bills and that they should move on to something better if they ACTUALLY need money.
Which just seems like a load of bullshit. (Interestingly, this was a registered democrat that came up with this reasoning.)

I'm also not sure of the exact numbers, but discrepancies can be chalked up to how you're counting it. Whether you're counting it over the 2 years or yearly. Whether you're counting the cuts that went into the budget as well or just the spending increases. And also whether you're counting the spots they've actually managed to find ways to increase revenue to pay for things.

If I had to guess that 320 billion number is total spending increase over two years, without cuts taken into account and ignoring revenues.

77B sounds like a decent number if you wanted to go yearly, and included spending cuts as balancing out spending increases and possibly included revenues in it.

Best part is everyone is spinning it however they want to spin it. Everyone wins... (or loses, if that helps them win re-election.)

2 years is quite slow for that amount of progress. Granted I'm not MUCH faster but I'm definitely slow to the point of it causing me troubles and can imagine just a bit slower would be fatal.

The spikeball launcher is one of the first craft weapons you should get, but a lot of your missions should be going after craft that have landed on their own. Shooting things down, unless you have a good reason, is usually not worth it. Those early weapons and craft really limit what you even CAN shoot down.

Early on, equip people with melee and a couple of muskets for the ones that make themselves a pain. Handles for melee, preferably, to capture enemies alive. Use your huge.... time units... to get yourself close to the enemy and whack them on the head. Interrogate EVERYONE. Multiple times. Make sure you get every piece of research out of a given type of enemy before you start ransoming them.

Beyond that there can be a lot of luck involved in exactly what path you take. But interrogate prisoners, research new mission types, don't be afraid to run away, but also grab and take every crumb you can with you. Also losing your first few games is to be expected. Either accept that you'll have to do some reloading of saves, or accept that you'll have to start over a few times. I tend to always start over.

Quote from: smjjames on July 13, 2019, 08:55:48 am

Quote from: Naturegirl1999 on July 13, 2019, 08:39:09 am

Quote from: sluissa on July 13, 2019, 08:28:27 am

Or just... you know... break up the parties. Because the party organization is the one pushing this sort of thing.

How would we go about breaking up the parties?

Logistically, legally, or philosophically?

You could definetly split both parties into their moderate (insofar as they exist on the Republican side) and far left/right sections, but I'm not sure how much further they can be divided. The Green and Libertarian parties already have their niches.

The main problem though is the first past the post system, which makes a two party system inevitable.

If I remember correctly, there would need to be a Constitutional Amendment to replace the FPTP with another system, the alternate vote system, this video explains it better than me

Just saying "Break up the parties" is a bit of an "Eat the rich" solution to things. It would be almost undoable, especially since those parties have control over almost every recourse you'd use to enact a breakup. Not to mention such a breakup would leave things a bit chaotic and probably enable even worse forces to slip into positions of control than before...

There is however an undercurrent in some circles who quote George Washington as specifically warning against political parties.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Ignoring the fact that parties had already formed, and Washington had chosen his side and was mostly angry that others were disagreeing with him, it's still fairly prescient a statement, having been given a chance to see history unfold so closely to what he was warning about.

With all that said though, I can think of no feasible way, short of a spontaneous, widespread, anti-political uprising, that we could go about it. So break up the parties, eat the rich, and a pony for every American.