Chris

Hello new folks!

Here's a slightly better highlighted version that clips out the dead air at the beginning: https://www.twitch.tv/idlethumbs/v/71947663

Thanks to everyone who hung out with us for that! It was super fun!

I'm not advocating for this strategy, but there is going to be a president no matter what, and I will vote for the one that I think will be the best of the options available.

I think it's probably safe to say drone strikes are going to remain an important part of US counter-terrorism strategy for the foreseeable future, regardless of who is president, including Bernie (who himself has explicitly stated as such). So I think comparisons between "idealism" and "inexperience" and "experience" are basically meaningless when it comes to expectations of that changing. I also think Hillary Clinton being painted as the hawk to end all hawks has become more of a meme than any real foreign policy analysis. I'm not saying she's a dove, but she's also not some kind of crazy warmonger. In her tenure as Secretary of State she exhibited a wide variety of foreign policy strategies. And overall, as I indicated before, I believe that anyone stepping into a commanding position in US foreign policy (or, really, the foreign policy of any major international power with significant involvement in world affairs) is going to have a significant share of their decisions heavily influenced by the momentum of all the decisions that have come before them, regardless of what they have the freedom to claim while running for president. What I mainly want is for a president not to make things worse through ineptitude, and to make things better where safely possible. I trust Clinton to work towards those aims as competently as anyone else would, certainly infinitely more than someone like Trump.

+18 points.

Could you link a few respected journalists saying, effectively, these things? Absent the specific examples, I basically cannot imagine what this means.

That's a good question. I'm not sure. You could definitely turn in a ballot where you voted for other non-presidential offices, but leave the president boxes unchecked. I'm not sure how that would be counted. Probably still as not a vote at at all, specifically in the case of the the presidential election. Maybe voting for a write-in but not writing anything.

I just wrote a huge-ass post about Hillary Clinton then deleted it all, haha. To boil it down to a paragraph, I basically think that the specific breadth and depth of her experience is extremely impressive and very unusual for a presidential candidate, as it involves both years of experience as a legislator but also years of experience as a critical figure within the US foreign policy apparatus. I think absolutely anyone who is involved with the latter in particular is going to end up having plenty of questionable grist for the mill, both legitimate and frivolous. It's simply impossible for me to imagine anyone having to step into that position and not having to make difficult or sometimes unsavory decisions. That is NOT an excuse for poor or morally questionable decisions. But I am very strongly against litmus tests as a methodology for choosing candidates. That's the exact mentality that disturbs me so deeply about the post-Tea Party right. When I look at the entirety of Hillary Clinton's career, and filter out the spurious attacks largely originating from the right (many of which have sadly been adopted by some on the left), it is true that you are still left with some unsavory elements. But I don't believe any person could be put through her volume and types of experience without that, especially when it involves having to step into the middle of ongoing US foreign policy. Despite it all I think when you take a look at all she has done and tried to do, I think she comes out impressive and admirable on balance and I think and hope she'll be a good president.

I think for the left to really get what it wants, it has to acknowledge that the president isn't the person who's going to do it. For decades, Republicans have built a really impressive operation that has put a lot of conservatives in power across less-visible offices that can be effectively secured for a lot less money than it takes to mount a successful presidential campaign. That kind of focus is what the left badly needs, in my opinion. No president is going to be able to enact sweeping legislative change. The system simply isn't designed to allow that; if anything, it was designed NOT to allow that. The president is a steward, not a legislator. Frankly I think it's kind of amazing that Obama managed to even get something as big as the ACA through, and that's still only a small part of what's needed to really overhaul health care in this country. But I don't even really expect something on that scale to happen again any time soon, in terms of what's coming from the president's administration. I don't understand why anyone thinks Sanders individually would be able to enact broad social and political change as president. For that to happen the left also needs more representatives, more senators, more judges, and so on. When people use their one individual presidential candidate not getting picked as an excuse to disengage from politics, to me I just read that as misconstruing what the president actually does. Between the power of veto, and the power to appoint supreme court justices, and the authority as commander in chief, then president has a lot of very important power, but none of it is legislative.

Episode is up!

Awesome, cheers!

Ahem: As an aside, I can confirm that this is a good drink!

I like Hillary Clinton and I'm happy she's the almost-certain nominee of my party, and likely the next president of my country, and it kind of bums me out that I feel like I have to be so nervous about saying that just about anywhere on the internet that is frequented by my peers, and have felt that way for essentially the entire primary. I hope that changes as we get deeper into the general election. I'm not saying that's a big hardship for me or anything, it's just a bit of a shame.

Idle Weekend June 4, 2016: Get You a Game That Can Do Both This episode, the Weekenders discuss a favorite topic: the push and pull between tight, well-constructed scenarios and wide-open rulesets. How open is an open-world game, after all, and how open should it be? Elsewhere, we discuss sexy characters, comedy that takes on mental illness with sensitivity, and the very strange sci-fi/action/romance of The Adjustment Bureau. Discussed: Hearts of Iron IV, The Witcher 3, Far Cry 2, Far Cry 4, The Adjustment Bureau, Justified, Super Hyper Cube, Lady Dynamite, The Maria Bamford Show Listen on the Episode Page Listen on Soundcloud Listen in iTunes

lolllllllllll

It's already on there!

Oh he was just really tired

I'm not shitting on the concept of it, just conveying my own discomfort with it in a public setting. I'm totally into it with friends. Hearing random people in voice chat puts me on edge. It's not really a broader opinion, it's just something that's true for me.

Yeah I was just saying a number that sort of gestured at the general range of characters there is since I didn't ever count. Sorry! (Although I did explicitly say that you vote for those commendations across both teams.)

Idle Weekend May 20, 2016: History Doomed to Repeat Itself The Weekenders are enamored with the most gloriously goofy video game of 2016 thus far: id's fast, furious, and self-assured Doom reboot. When not scouring demon-infested Martian hellscapes (or just... Hell's hellscapes) for Doomguys to fist-bump, Danielle ponders the delights of Soft Body and Rob goes toe-to-toe with a million-orc army. Discussed: Doom, Wolfenstein: The New Order, WOW, Gwent, Blitzball, Total War: Warhammer, Soft Body Listen on the Episode Page Listen on Soundcloud Listen in iTunes

Idle Weekend April 30, 2016: PAX Americana The Weekenders have a full plate this time around, with PAX stories of fake wrestling, playing Pyre, and taking in the atmosphere of an overcrowded show floor. Later, Rob dives into the wonderful Mad Max: Fury Road, and Danielle gets her secret decoder ring ready for a wild marathon of The Americans. Discussed: PAX, E3, Pyre, Final Fantasy 10, Outlast 2, Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing Transformed, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Americans Listen on the Episode Page Listen on Soundcloud Listen in iTunes

We were like two hours into the game, max.

I think one thing we should do in this thread is explicitly state whether a given drink has been actually constructed and consumed by a human, and whether it's basically palatable or not. That way there's still room for people to just make jokes, but also room to use this as a legitimate cocktail jam, so we can drink them on a stream some time—and so other readers can make them too! (I don't mind drinking some total disasters also but I think it would be tough to sustain after a few super-gross concoctions.)

Oh mannnn. This is so great. Good job everyone.