[News] Post a D&D Picture

Previous incarnations of Cleveland/P&C/D&D have had an image thread, to handle political cartoons and other image-based stuff that doesn't belong in the general post-a-picture threads.

If any of them spawn an extended discussion, please spawn it off into its own thread. Replies to non-picture replies should take the form of a link pointing to a post on a different discussion thread.

And I shouldn't have to say it, but the images still need to abide by the rules.

It's not even like the water is that deep.

farley3k wrote:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/S4ZbIM1.jpg)

Not sure why this is D&D. It is very sweet.

He's a cleric.

Because while he acted nice to that one child he's largely done nothing to protect other thousands of others from the pedophile priests throughout the Catholic Church.

And the steps he has taken have mostly been to reduce the sanctions priests convicted of abuse face.

OG_slinger wrote:

Because while he acted nice to that one child he's largely done nothing to protect other thousands of others from the pedophile priests throughout the Catholic Church.

And the steps he has taken have mostly been to reduce the sanctions priests convicted of abuse face.

I did not know that.

But now you know why I put it here. I have found that anything dealing with religion should just go here no matter how seemingly inoffensive it may be to me (or you)

For good or ill people have a lot of baggage about religion....I suppose that makes sense.

The text on that image isn't entirely true, the bit about the security guards was made up.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/po...

IMAGE(https://media.boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/1378cbCOMIC-hard-times-in-vhs-country.jpg)

Mah buggy whip business!

Wheah shall I go? What shall I do?

BadKen wrote:

Mah buggy whip business!

Wheah shall I go? What shall I do?

Kink community specialist?

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/S3EpC17.png)

Trump administration senior staff turnover is at 43% or just about what you'd expect for a TGI Fridays or Applebee's.

I wonder how it compares to previous administrations at this point in their term.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I wonder how it compares to previous administrations at this point in their term.

From NPR:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/XxARDAP.jpg)

Chairman_Mao wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:

I wonder how it compares to previous administrations at this point in their term.

From NPR:

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/XxARDAP.jpg)

He's winning!

I’m actually shocked how high the others are. Granted, that’s 2 years vs 13 months for trump. No way we don’t hit 50% and it looks like The Mooch might get fired twice.

Thanks for digging that up Mao, interesting to see.

oilypenguin wrote:

I’m actually shocked how high the others are. Granted, that’s 2 years vs 13 months for trump. No way we don’t hit 50% and it looks like The Mooch might get fired twice.

It is probably also important to take into account the REASONS for the turn over.

karmajay wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

I’m actually shocked how high the others are. Granted, that’s 2 years vs 13 months for trump. No way we don’t hit 50% and it looks like The Mooch might get fired twice.

It is probably also important to take into account the REASONS for the turn over.

Right. It’s fairly typical for an administration to turn over staff at the 2 year mark. People leave to run for office in the mid-term cycle or they take jobs in the private sector. Usually by the 1 year mark the deputies of various departments are more visible and you see a succession plan at work. Especially with positions like Press Secretary.

Probably worth linking to explain the high number for Clinton and the differences--most striking, Clinton's relationship with and confidence in those replacements:

McLarty, who had never worked for Clinton in government, had been somewhat surprised to be tapped as chief of staff, and decided to serve no more than two years. In the summer of 1994, he stepped down and was replaced by Panetta, who was then head of the Office of Management and Budget. Panetta told Clinton he was happy where he was. The president replied, “You know, you could be the greatest OMB director in the history of the country, but if the White House is falling apart, nobody's going to remember you.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, the new Chief Economic Advisor to the President of the United States...Doug.

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/wKxAR9a.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/a0XND4z.jpg)

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/uLjqeug.jpg)

Because our system is built that way.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Because our system is built that way.

You've probably all seen this by now but I still feel like it's time to post this again:

Full playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tW...

Edit: Apologies for posting a moving picture.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Because our system is built that way.

And since our system is the greatest God has ever created we obviously can't try improve it.

The Founding Fathers weren't just Christians... they were Angels sent from heaven by God Himself. Slave owning, French sex tourist Angels.

farley3k wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Because our system is built that way.

And since our system is the greatest God has ever created we obviously can't try improve it.

I’d love to improve it. But I’m really sick of hearing about the need for a third party and laments about there just being two parties. It would take a massive overhaul of our elections and how we arrange our government. I’m all for it, but I want to hear how this would work, not just complaints about how we never vote for a third party.

Further, most people whining for more parties fail to see how the two party system has worked throughout most of our history, which is having factions within each party. That’s how you get the GOP and Dems working together, as some factions will find common ground with certain factions in the other party.

That has mostly ended due to the Hastert rule, which the GOP employs to squash dissent in the party and puts an emphasis on winning over solving problems. The GOP, when holding a majority, refuses to bring any bill to the floor that can’t be passed with just Republican votes.

The other thing that annoys me about call for more parties is that it comes from liberals that want their politicians to pass a purity test. It’s worse than the Hastert rule and has only served to reduce the progressive voice in Congress. It’s anti-compromise to choose to leave the party instead of finding common ground. And in the end, that just plays into the hands of what the GOP wants.

That has mostly ended due to the Hastert rule, which the GOP employs to squash dissent in the party and puts an emphasis on winning over solving problems. The GOP, when holding a majority, refuses to bring any bill to the floor that can’t be passed with just Republican votes.

I don’t understand why the speaker of the house - clearly a partisan - gets to decide what the house gets to decide on. Them being able to simply not call for votes on arbitrary issues on a whim seems so obviously ripe for abuse I’m amazed anyone ever agreed to the idea.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I don’t understand why the speaker of the house - clearly a partisan - gets to decide what the house gets to decide on. Them being able to simply not call for votes on arbitrary issues on a whim seems so obviously ripe for abuse I’m amazed anyone ever agreed to the idea.

"Surely if someone were to be that unreasonable they would be voted out by the other members of Congress."

Vargen wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I don’t understand why the speaker of the house - clearly a partisan - gets to decide what the house gets to decide on. Them being able to simply not call for votes on arbitrary issues on a whim seems so obviously ripe for abuse I’m amazed anyone ever agreed to the idea.

"Surely if someone were to be that unreasonable they would be voted out by the other members of Congress."

Sure, but that's changing something that exists. There always friction involved in changing things.

I mean, how did a rule like that ever get implemented in the first place? How did the system get set up originally? Or was it a matter of one party with a big majority and no foresight saying, "Yup, this seems like it can only ever go well for us!"