Darklord Rooke

Heh, 46% of millennials voted for Trump, which is a decent building block because a good number of people change their views as they get older. As in, there's a theory going around that young people get more conservative once they get a job and have things to protect. Just a thought.

I once dreamed of being a vagabond - travelling from place to place unfettered and free. I failed The need for money is too strong.

Of course, all of this is why one of the first things an aspiring writer should do is to join a writing circle with at least one published author in it. This gives feedback from someone within the industry. That way they won’t have to trust what random people on the internet tell them about 'show', 'tell', or anything else. Of course, ignore their advice and chances are they'll just walk away and not bother.

I thought her books were better when they didn't have a serious plot. Book 5 was almost unreadable at times *grimaces* Also they aren't my arbitrary distinctions between literary and genre fiction. I'm actually repeating what comes out of the mouths of Publishing House editors (and critics), and what they consider good literary fiction compared with good genre fiction. It's fine to chuck aside their definitions, but that's what is considered literary, even though the boundaries tend to blur. Also genre fiction contains what I consider to be invisible prose a lot of the time, not really drawing attention to itself, it doesn't contain bad prose. 'Show' is the easiest way to increase detail in a scene that lacks detail. Writing that lacks detail is one of the most common complaints of beginner writers. 'Tell' is a technique often misused by beginner writers to the point that there's a lack of detail in key scenes, which is why the rule was created. Anyway, I think your idea of critique is a completely fine one, but the OP wants to be published by a traditional publisher. Traditional publishers are dying, they're behind the times, they arbitrarily raise ebook prices to keep their draconian hold over distribution alive, but if the OP wants to get published by a traditional publisher then he needs to listen to more traditional advice. I dunno what else to say, he's not going to convince these people to change their standards because he's thinking about word count. If you seek to encourage him to write in whatever style he wants, however he wants, as long as the ideas are there regardless of his ability, I genuinely believe you're not actually doing him any favours if he seeks to get published in a traditional way. But I could be dreadfully wrong, who knows. The traditional writing world is actually an incredibly harsh place. G R R Martin used to get rejected by a certain magazine every time he submitted there. It's not really a place for egos TBH, until you're being courted by Hollywood that is. Chances are your ego will get crushed again and again. Going easy on people now just means you don't prepare them very much for later on. One of the first things a writer needs to do is to cultivate a thick skin, and prepare for a lot of rejection.

I think people should have faith in the checks and balances of the American system. It’s said that Congress is supposed to be more powerful than the President (theoretically,) and the Republican Party isn’t exactly a fan of Trump. Trump and Ryan are semi-openly hostile. I think there’ll be a ton of negotiation and compromise, all of which takes time, and before you know it 4 years will be up and you’ll be back to the polls. UNFORTUNATELY, many of the checks and balances put in place by the founding fathers have been eroded (otherwise Trump probably wouldn't have been elected in the first place.) But the Constitution was created to prevent President's from doing too much damage. I don't really have an idea how true that still is.

*Double post* (ah well) Can't argue with the points you raised though. You raised some good ones. It just goes against what America was founded to be (popular vote, that is.)

Oh hey, check this out. A little off topic, but I got a chuckle out of it: Ahaha ... totally not funny, sorry I will dub these people PROPHETS OF THE HIGHEST ORDER ... sorry again Anyway, America was designed to be a republic, because the founding fathers feared tyranny of the majority. Most of what they did was to keep the majority from holding authority.

It was specifically designed not to be by the Founding Fathers, I believe. There's cons of the electoral college system, for sure, but people are overlooking the cons of a popular vote. That and America was never created to be a democracy.

Which people?

In the scenario I painted, I'm sure most of the country would be thrilled with having their leader shoved down their throats by the 3 sole states. Disenchantment might grow to the point where a section of the country wants to break away and form their own country, like how Scotland wants to break away from the UK, and Catalonia pushing for independence from Spain. People don't like having things decided for them by far away people who are different. I mean, I have problems with the way votes are split with electoral colleges, and maybe the winner takes all delegate system, but I don’t like the idea of a popular vote. We don’t have one in Australia, either. Each area elects a representative, the party with the most representatives forms Government, the party elects a Prime Minister. We also have cases where Prime Ministers win office but lose the popular vote. I’m not really fussed when it happens, though. It means the loser of the campaign was disproportionately popular in some areas, but I think giving those areas excessive influence could cause problems. 'We're being governed by those folk in *such and such* a place, and I'm sick of it.'

To give each part of the US an equal say to elect President. So if, for example, 90% of Texas, Florida, and California voted for Candidate A then those 3 states pretty much decide the election in a popular vote.

I usually read more traditional media, I have no clue what weird sites the young people of today visit

That's a pretty good article 0.0 ... what's Cracked? I've never heard of the site :S

It's a report about Trump's fanbase. Thought you might find it interesting instead of hearing the usual stuff over twitter (hatred won, bigotry won, etc etc.)

I really don't see the difference :S One uses voter fraud to help explain a loss, the other uses voter intimidation. Each side accuses the other of legally not abiding by the system. The only difference is that one accusation came from Trump, and the other came from the party (probably endorsed by the leader.) His rallying call was hyperbole, he can't go outside the system and he can't act as judge and jury. He knows this, his fanbase knows this, it's a bit much to expect much than a rigorous pursuit of Clinton. I don't think anybody has seriously thought Clinton would be tried by election, not Clinton, not Trump himself. And so Clinton is going to be investigated again. Julia Gillard was investigated 2 or 3 times. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to hide. Although if she had nothing to hide I'd question her use of a private server. He's promising to assign a special prosecutor to look into potential misconduct by Clinton. Exploring all avenues is quite allowed, and exploring the idea that the FBI investigation was tainted due to conflict of interest is an idea that's popular with the fanbase ... apparently.

Was actually happening on both sides. The Democrats launched legal action in 6 or 7 different states just prior to the election: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/democrats-republican-poll-watching-lawsuits/index.html The Supreme Court Monday denied an emergency request filed by Democratic lawyers to reinstate a federal court order barring the Trump campaign from engaging in activities that Democrats allege could lead to voter intimidation in Ohio. The ruling is a win for the Trump campaign and the GOP state parties, which have successfully fended off several pre-emptive lawsuits filed by Democrats across the country that accuse Trump and Republicans of "conspiring to threaten and intimidate minority voters in urban neighborhoods from voting in the 2016 election." The intellectual left must be more of a European thing

Check this article out - http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-america-hiding-in-plain-sight

In Australia, each political party promises deep investigations over the behaviour of the other. Bill Shorten has been under investigation over past behaviour, Julia Gillard has been under investigation of past behaviour, there were attempts to impeach George W Bush over his lies with the Iraq invasion, and Bill Clinton due to his affair. Pursuing past behaviour of a political rival that could be corrupt and/or illegal is nothing new.

Rest easy

Heh, Gore got screwed by people who couldn't vote correctly in Florida. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/ The above study suggests that had the recount not been stopped, Bush would have still likely won the recount, BUT more people left to the polling place intending to vote for Gore. No one's fault by their own, unfortunately.

Not much wondering involved, TBH. We've already seen it play out as far as possible during the 'stolen election' of 2000. Gore vs Bush, that went all the way to the US supreme court?

If they win they expect you to swallow it and like it. If they lose there's something wrong with the system and it needs fixing

It’s seen as elitist snobbery. There’s growing resentment toward the intellectual left (or the liberal elite) because of how they treat people whenever there’s an election, or if the right win. One of the first things claimed is how everybody’s stupid. No, they’re not stupid, they just have different concerns and you dismissing those concerns will just cause deep resentment. It's just arrogance, and conceit. I agree with you 100% here.

Same. Nobody wants another war, but America, Russia, and Europe have been inching toward one.

Nobody focused any attention on him. He was an oddity, but one that never had his policies, or anything at all, put under any intense scrutiny. The idea that he’s competent is something that is yet to be determined, and the same for his policies. Clinton on the other hand was blasted. Sanders bemoaned a lack of journalistic attention, in some ways that could have played to his favour.