The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Eh, that's what they said last time around too, and look how that turned out. In fact, that's what is said every time one candidate or another makes character attacks. Sure it's a token response, and a good one, but I fail to see why it would be any more or less effective a response than usual.
Actually, the more I think about it, the more the election right now resembles 1992. There's no Perot factor, of course, but once again you've got a screwed-up economy and a populace that's sick of the incumbent party. In early October '92, Bush was down and the campaign pulled out the heavy-duty negative character attacks on Clinton (who was a far more vulnerable candidate than Obama on that front). It didn't work, and what made the difference was that (1) it was late in the cycle, and (2) the Clinton-Carville "War Room" was brilliant at responding quickly and effectively.
It's once again late in the cycle. The question is, are Obama's generals as good as Clintons were? Given that they've turned a young, black, half-a-term senator whose middle name is Hussein into the frontrunner for the US presidency, I'd say yeah, they're pretty f*cking good.
But it ain't over.
"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin
The operative phrase being "no Perot factor." IMHO it's folly to analogize anything in any way, shape or form to an election where the victor only got 43% of the vote.
(Unless you seriously believe Perot took anywhere near as many would-be D votes as would-be R votes, but I know you're smarter than that...)
That was back in the days when people still voted rationally. It is a long time since that was the case. Democracy does not work that way any more.
USians elected 3 republicans before FDR. They strongly believed in free markets and associated republicans with them. USians weren't really that much different back then.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
"Dress the Part with Sex and the City-Inspired Lingerie from Bare Necessities"
Must be determined by past purchases.
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Originally posted by Aeson
I think he's referring to this part of amazon's front page:
That could be taken two ways. It might be that 56% like Obama more, but it might also be that 56% are looking to be the thing that scares them most for Halloween--a Black President with a suspiciously Muslim name! The rest are scared of a crazed Republican POW in the WH. Actually, it's probably a combination of supporters and haters on both sides.
Originally posted by Agathon
I'll be surprised if Obama wins, but it might be better if he doesn't, since the Presidency looks to be a poisoned chalice this time around, and there is absolutely no evidence that the voters are willing to change their own preferences in order to fix things. If Obama wins and makes a serious attempt to fix things, he'll be gone in four years. If he does a Clinton, then he'll probably last eight, if your country does.
I've been hearing predictions that we're headed into a resession that'll last about two years. This is long enough that, when Obama runs for re-election, he'll be able to claim he fixed it, and that again, it's morning in America.
291-300 was my pick. The Obama people believe that the race will tighten up as we move away from this week of possible economic gloom and doom, especially with the bailout being passed.
I agree with them and think it won't be nearly as wide of a gap as the numbers have them now.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
291-300 was my pick. The Obama people believe that the race will tighten up as we move away from this week of possible economic gloom and doom, especially with the bailout being passed.
I agree with them and think it won't be nearly as wide of a gap as the numbers have them now.
I think the trend will go exactly the opposite. Lay offs are going to continue; foreclosures are going to continue; the stock market is continuing the struggle.
Economics will be on the minds of Americans....and Dems always have the upper hand when that happens.
Originally posted by Darius871 (Unless you seriously believe Perot took anywhere near as many would-be D votes as would-be R votes, but I know you're smarter than that...)
Actually, a exit poll of 15,000 voters in the '92 election shows just that. Can't find a free link, sorry.
Just from knowing what Perot was "about" I find that extremely hard to believe (absent very manipulatively worded questions), but I'd certainly love to be proven wrong.
Originally posted by Darius871
Just from knowing what Perot was "about" I find that extremely hard to believe, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
The Wiki article on the '92 election, which I'm too lazy to link to, also mentions it. Apparently, Perot supports were almost evenly divided between voters who would have voted for Clinton otherwise, voters who would have voted for Bush otherwise, and voters who wouldn't have voted otherwise. So if Perot didn't matter, maybe 1992 is the best analogy.
"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin
Tweet
Comment