unfortunately, even the more reasonable ones are suckered into the hilarious circus that every Republican debate has become, it feels like they spend about 3% of each debate talking about literally ANY actual policy at all

and it feels like that because it is like that

I have to say, I'm really not a fan of these arguments from authority. You don't need to be an economist to be able to compare the effects of, say, supply-side versus progressive taxation, or regulation versus deregulation of investment banks. Historical patterns are pretty strong and most theoretical models by the so-called "Chicago School" make ridiculous assumptions that no one could ever possibly agree with if they were using common sense.

Same on the military point, for three major reasons:

1) Some presidents (particularly Dubya) have really small inner circles that do not extend to the actual military brass in the Pentagon, and often they do things that top generals explicitly warn against.

2) There's a difference between operational expertise and international relations expertise. A general might tell you the best way to, say, prevent looting or restore an electrical grid in an occupation, but they won't necessarily give you the best advice on international support or lack thereof, or even a broader understanding of the moral challenges of asymmetrical warfare.

3) Even well-meaning military personnel are generally biased towards spending more on defense and putting more boots in the ground. Unless you believe that's the correct solution for literally every foreign policy quagmire, they can't always be right.

I don't even know if I should dignify this post with a response but, aside from mr. owl's very obvious point that none of this comment is at all relevant to the fact that your reasoning was awful (the youth supporting bernie sanders should be an effect of policies that they respond to, not a cause for yet more youth to immediately latch on unless they're extremely shallow), I feel I should address the ad hominem in your post by saying:

I don't mind if people exploit my absurd hours in any number of ways- calling me a no lifer, nerd virgin, etc. however, let me tell you a little bit about myself outside of tf2. I'm a political science major at Amherst College, I've worked for two NYC area politicians as well as interned for the Obama campaign in 2008 (and I spoke at a platform meeting about the importance of stem cell research), I worked last summer for the New York City Campaign Finance Board, and I was a human rights volunteer for a little bit in South Africa

you can make all sorts of assumptions about the lack of a social life or whatnot that my tf2 playtime creates, but this is the one area where I am confident I still know a lot on

having seen your original post, you should probably complain to the government/history/poli sci/whatever department at your school for having a ridiculously overly simplistic view of american politics, one that is being challenged in every debate or primary/caucus we have seen so far

there are a few underlying assumptions to the view that only "moderate" candidates like clinton or rubio can win nationally, such as

1) the notion that swing voters are all centrists who are searching for a moderate voice

2) the notion that elections are decided by substantive policy decisions rather than concepts such as being a washington outsider or appearing to be more honest/unrehearsed/less of a standard politician

3) ignorance of the truth that, if people voted based on pure self-interest, the democratic candidate would win every election because their economic policies are inherently redistributive

all of these assumptions are flawed, and less moderate candidates (or those perceived as less moderate) often win primaries or even general elections

I can never tell if people who create memes like this actually believe shit like that

I'm assuming they usually don't but you can never tell anymore

debating politics on the internet might be an exercise in futility in terms of converting those who are entrenched in their kooky positions but if apolitical randoms happen to click on it it's nice to give them an informed viewpoint to counterbalance the fuckery of racism and slogans repeated with no knowledge of a subject matter

because I'm bad at letting stupid posts go ima do a quick read through of this thread and call people out

also, even if one were to try to argue that melee were harder than starcraft (which seems wrong to me but I profess some ignorance on the topic) purely from a potential skill ceiling perspective, koreans play sc meaning the game has been taken further, it's that simple

the level of infrastructure bw had in korea was pretty nutty and will prolly never be matched, it was just this perfect cultural moment that could only happen in that mid period of esports from like 2005 to 2010 or so

maybe the better term is "more unforgiving" or "higher skill floor" rather than "hardest" for qw

it's kinda sad that since the ql era quake has become almost completely about duel tho, for my money some of the most impressive quake ever is watching a guy like milton utterly shred through TDM

to clarify for those uninitiated, the hardest Quake game is still Quake World

the "hardest" cs game is 1.3 because the mechanical skill ceiling was slightly higher than later patches

and then brood war obviously for sc

while it might be hard to compare between genres, it's not that difficult to compare within a genre imo

oh fuck I almost forgot about santa

sneis
exfane

and then if u wanna go back into the .idk days there's

oggy
night
easy
piece
pure
reptile
longas
gregory "slick" champagne
etc. etc. etc.

rest in peace wai and jh

not gonna lie, this looks really impressive for a mid-budget kickstarter game

picture of dolphin rider irl:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/O_jR3OeRJZY/hqdefault.jpg

at the end of the day XCV still blatantly hacks in lobbies with Roxanne so no one is gonna take his side

like OMG guys this is a VIDEO GAME FORUM stop TALKING ABOUT POLITICS U DORKS HEHEHEE