Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 14:27:

Yep it totally sucks that voting isn't totally restricted to socialists and those that share the view point that in order to prosper again, America needs to become another Europe.

You're a tea partier, right? So you view the Constitution as a document to be unerringly followed to the letter, correct? Did you ever notice how US Senators and the President are "voted" for? Go look it up: I'll wait. Back now? What's that? You couldn't find any provision for citizens to directly vote for either their US Senators or their President? Did you notice that Senators are to be selected by the state legislatures, with no voter input, and that Electors for the Presidency are to be selected by the state legislatures as well, again with no input from voters?

See the thing is, the Founders were HIGHLY suspicious of ordinary citizens being given too much power. They looked at the example of Ancient Athens, and generally recoiled in horror at the influence of demagogues on the hoi polloi, especially during the Peloponnesian War. As such, while they wanted to give ordinary citizens a voice in government, they didn't want to give them TOO MUCH of a voice. Therefore, they sought to insulate the Senate and the Presidency from the volatility of the public mood, by ensuring that only "the right kind of people" had the power to elect them, i.e. state legislatures, and electors, who were envisioned as being prominent citizens reputed for political wisdom, and thus less likely to be carried away by the will of the mob.

The point of all of this is that if you were truly a "Conservative" trying to preserve (the literal meaning of conservare, the Latin root of conservative) the original meaning of the US Constitution, then you'd very much be in support of only "the right kind of people" being allowed to vote.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 12:06:

PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:55:
There are already millions of disenfranchised Americans... they're called people with criminal convictions.

There definitely should be higher standards for voters. My grandmother, for instance, is racist. She wouldn't vote for Obama on the sole fact of his being black. She should absolutely, positively, NOT be allowed to vote. In this day and age every citizen pretty much has access to tools to educate themselves and stay modestly informed... but a startling amount choose not to. I don't want uninformed bigots to have any say in a national election.

I agree that it sucks that uninformed and/or racist/bigoted folks can vote based only on their ignorance and hatred, but there's no good way to screen voters, so we just have to keep trying to educate more people and hope that each generation is at least a little more tolerant and a little less ignorant than the last. I think we're making progress on the tolerance part. Not sure about the ignorance, as there's plenty of that on both sides. I can't even talk to most co-workers, teammates, etc about politics, because they tend to have nothing more than gut reactions and crap they heard on TV/radio to go by.

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:47:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:12:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:58:

Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:54:

Creston wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:51:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 08:14:
Lastly, fuck the popular vote. This is WHY we have an electoral college. Old, rural white men turned out in droves for Mitt. Pretty much every other demographic went Obama. Why should we cater to old, rural white men? They're uneducated, they're bigoted, and this isn't their country anymore. It belongs to the educated, mixed masses in the cities.

Uh, hello. The old, bigoted rural white man has just as much of a right to vote on a president as you do. That's called democracy, remember? It's that thing that you're always bleating about, until it does something you don't like.

Creston

Jesus Christ - I wish the ignore function also blocked people quoting the ones being ignored. I feel dumber for just having read the idiotic statement you quoted. At least it serves to validate my choice to leave him on ignore when I read utter tripe like this.

I love that he doesn't actually address this. Look at the demographics: women voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Under 40 voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Cities voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Graduate degrees voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Men, over 40, and rural voted overwhelmingly for Romney. THIS is the problem with the GOP - they have been courting the wrong people. The social issues are what won this election, and it was the democrats stances.


Someone please quote this. I would love to know what he took offense to.

And when we're a bankrupt 3rd world social utopia that you idiots want, those "social issues" won't mean shit. It's not that they've been courting the wrong people, it's that the liberal indoctrination that has gone on in public schools/colleges for the last 20-30 years have produced a bunch of entitled douchebags like yourself.

3rd world social utopia? Has that happened in the last 4 years?

More importantly, were we a 3rd world social utopia under Joe McCarthy? Its the tax policy he fought for that I want to go back to.
Amazing that people call Joe McCarthy a socialist these days.

And how am I entitled? I'm arguing to raise my taxes! The entire economy is hurting because too few people make too much money. I'm certainly not in the top 0.1%, which is the number I take most offense to, but if you adjust the 1960s tax brackets for inflation my taxes are still going way up as a single man making a very nice amount of cash.

Creston wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 11:28:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:53:

Creston wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:51:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 08:14:
Lastly, fuck the popular vote. This is WHY we have an electoral college. Old, rural white men turned out in droves for Mitt. Pretty much every other demographic went Obama. Why should we cater to old, rural white men? They're uneducated, they're bigoted, and this isn't their country anymore. It belongs to the educated, mixed masses in the cities.

Uh, hello. The old, bigoted rural white man has just as much of a right to vote on a president as you do. That's called democracy, remember? It's that thing that you're always bleating about, until it does something you don't like.

Creston

When did I say they didn't have the right to vote?
I said that they aren't relevant, not that they should be forbidden to vote...

Don't play coy, Beamer, you know damn well what you meant. Like it or not, those rural people are part of the united states. In 2000 every single liberal cried for months when Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral college. It needed to be abolished, and it was ridiculous yadda yadda yadda.

And now you're championing it like it's the greatest gift to democracy that has ever been invented, because "IT SHUTS UP THE DAMN OLD WHITE PEOPLE!" You know just as well as I that the electoral college is fucking bullshit.

It wouldn't have mattered in this election (fortunately, since the last thing I want to hear is three more months of people whining about it), but if 300 million people vote, the guy who should be president is the one who gets 150,000,001+ votes. Not the one who happens to get enough votes in "important" states and gets 270 votes from a bunch of cocksuckers who work one day every four years.

If we got rid of the fucking electoral college, we could also get rid of the horseshit "LET'S SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN OHIO!!!" news coverage. Does anyone give a shit about Ohio? (Or Florida, for that matter?) I don't think even people in Ohio give a shit about Ohio. Why are Florida and Ohio always the ones that elect the fucking president, for all intents and purposes?

So yes, the people you feel "don't matter" are part of the united states, and their vote DOES matter. And what they want to see happen in the country DOES matter. That's called Democracy.

Creston

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:58:

Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:54:

Creston wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:51:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 08:14:
Lastly, fuck the popular vote. This is WHY we have an electoral college. Old, rural white men turned out in droves for Mitt. Pretty much every other demographic went Obama. Why should we cater to old, rural white men? They're uneducated, they're bigoted, and this isn't their country anymore. It belongs to the educated, mixed masses in the cities.

Uh, hello. The old, bigoted rural white man has just as much of a right to vote on a president as you do. That's called democracy, remember? It's that thing that you're always bleating about, until it does something you don't like.

Creston

Jesus Christ - I wish the ignore function also blocked people quoting the ones being ignored. I feel dumber for just having read the idiotic statement you quoted. At least it serves to validate my choice to leave him on ignore when I read utter tripe like this.

I love that he doesn't actually address this. Look at the demographics: women voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Under 40 voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Cities voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Graduate degrees voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

Men, over 40, and rural voted overwhelmingly for Romney. THIS is the problem with the GOP - they have been courting the wrong people. The social issues are what won this election, and it was the democrats stances.


Someone please quote this. I would love to know what he took offense to.

Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:30:

PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:13:
US Federal Spending 2010

"around 70%"??? And note this does NOT include funding for stuff like Homeland Security or the VA.

Medicare and SS serve a practical purpose, for all their flaws. I'm at far greater risk of dying of cancer than of a bullet from a Chinaman (as are you).

I agree that the defense budget would be less painful to cut - the point I was inelegantly trying to make is that the defense budget isn't the key to fixing America's financial woes. We probably don't need to be spending near as much as we are in defense, true, but what worries me is how far people seem willing to slash it without considering the potential risks involved.

Social Security is a huge drain on our budget that at least bears looking at. There are options that can be explored that could save a whole lot of money while still allowing us to keep our promises to our 'seasoned citizens' that were made long ago. But touching Social Security in DC is tantamount to political suicide - it is practically sacrosanct so no one is even willing to approach the subject because it would be career death. The main point is that with the country's finances in such a state of disarray I believe EVERYTHING needs to be on the table (including higher taxes) - With the understanding that we aren't just going to turn our backs on our elderly and sick, of course. But let's look where we can save some or make sure what we spend is spent more efficiently everywhere.

nin wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 10:04:
I'm rather surprised the recreational marijuana passed. Opens up a number of new questions (If federal says it's illegal, then what? If someones involved in an accident, how is it determined (or at what level) are they under the influence? Will the munchies finally lead to violent crime? ( ) etc etc).

Went to bed at 11, missed the speeches...

Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 09:21:

Verno wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 09:08:

I think Obama got plenty done, I just don't agree with all of it. That said, it's time to look forward and make due with what we have. He might be a Democrat but he's our President for the next 4 years. There is no reason that the country can't work together with reasoned debate instead of rhetoric and blame games. It starts with people like us too.

Yeah I agree with that. What bothered me most about his first term is what he *didn't* get passed - no federal budget in 4 years ( 2 of them while Democrats contolled the Congress and virtually any budget he wanted would have passed with ease) is just inexcusably irresponsible, which is the main reason I voted for Romney. Alas, Romney didn't win, so it's time to move on. Let's just hope that Obama shows a considerably larger amount of fiscal discretion this time around. With the deficit as out of control as it is some serious restraint in spending is a must in this term.

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 08:14:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:30:

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:02:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 17:48:

Bodolza wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:31:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:25:
Don't just raise taxes while still spending out of control like both parties are currently doing.

Wow. After your previous rants, I'm a bit surprised that you support Obama's position on spending.

LOL Obama's position on spending is raise taxes while continuing to spend. So no, I don't support the Obmessiah's position.

Spending isn't the issue people make it out to be. They love to, because China, but China barely has any of our debt.

Taxation is a problem. We need to go back to the same marginal tax rates as when we had a strong middle class. People act like it's a recent thing that the middle class is in decline, as if it can happen in 4 years instead of 30.

Pretty much there's a nice divide between people that still believe America is the end all and be all in the world, and that it can just print personal income, and people that realize that America is competing on a global economy and that personal income is disappearing to other nations yet somehow growing at the very top. That growth is coming from somewhere. If it isn't other nations it must be... the middle class!

Taxes are the lowest they've been across the board for the middle class in a long time. How hard is it to fathom that the 1% can't cover everything, they're already taxed more than anyone else and those people at the bottom that rake in all the handouts pay zero.

The issue is most definitely spending, you can't spend more than you take in and expect to prosper. Common sense beamer come on.

Once again it's the same ol song and dance, tax the rich, they'll pay for it all. Class warfare rah rah rah.

I can't fucking believe Americans want another 4 years of record debt and unemployment. Though when you look at the popular vote, Mittens clearly won. Might be time to revisit that whole electoral college bullshit and why an entire state that's pretty much all red, can flip to blue based on a single county and vise versa.

1) I think I clearly said, in the above post, that it isn't taxes on the middle class that's the problem. It's not what you earn, it's what you earn propotionately

2) Do you actually know anyone happy to earn so little that they don't get taxed? No, you haven't. You'll claim to know some "welfare queen" but here's a hint: they don't exist. No one is happy being a bottom feeder

3) Spending doesn't really matter. It never has. Why is it important? It's a symptom, and not a particularly meaningful one

4) I never said anything about the rich paying for anything, and I certainly never said anything about class warfare. You suck at reading. How could you think I'm talking about paying for anything when I'm saying spending isn't the issue? Jesus, man, Jesus. I'm saying that the problem is that we only make so much money in this country and most of it goes to few people. It's simple math

5) We had record debt under Bush. And, the US isn't a bubble - that unemployment is a global thing the president can't do much to change. It will get better on its own. And, at that point, you'll claim that it got better on its own, even though you somehow think the president should be fixing something that's coming at us from Europe and Asia


Lastly, fuck the popular vote. This is WHY we have an electoral college. Old, rural white men turned out in droves for Mitt. Pretty much every other demographic went Obama. Why should we cater to old, rural white men? They're uneducated, they're bigoted, and this isn't their country anymore. It belongs to the educated, mixed masses in the cities.

Cutter wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:46:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:30:
Taxes are the lowest they've been across the board for the middle class in a long time. How hard is it to fathom that the 1% can't cover everything, they're already taxed more than anyone else and those people at the bottom that rake in all the handouts pay zero.

But they can. They don't pay their share, not even close. That's why the tax laws are so convoluted and there are so many tax lawyers. When guys like Buffet say they're not paying enough - Buffet paid 17% last year while his secretary paid 35%. How else do you think that less than 1% of the population control over 90% of the wealth? So how you can argue they're not paying enough is absurd at best.

The issue is most definitely spending, you can't spend more than you take in and expect to prosper.

No one disagrees with that it's just a question of where those cuts come from. Maybe you want to live in some version of a post-apocalypse America where everyone fends for themselves but most people - even on the right - do not.

Once again it's the same ol song and dance, tax the rich, they'll pay for it all. Class warfare rah rah rah.

And guys like you defending them even as they make your life harder. Why is that?

I can't fucking believe Americans want another 4 years of record debt and unemployment. Though when you look at the popular vote, Mittens clearly won. Might be time to revisit that whole electoral college bullshit and why an entire state that's pretty much all red, can flip to blue based on a single county and vise versa.

I can't believe people voted for the GOP after the last 4 years of obstructionist politics where they won't budge an inch on anything they don't want. That's why nothing is getting done. And yeah, if there was no electoral college there never would have been a Dubya and America wouldn't be in the mess its in right now so I agree with you on that.

Edit: Well, looks like Obama wins the popular vote too. Oh that's gotta sting, huh?

Beamer wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:02:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 17:48:

Bodolza wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:31:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:25:
Don't just raise taxes while still spending out of control like both parties are currently doing.

Wow. After your previous rants, I'm a bit surprised that you support Obama's position on spending.

LOL Obama's position on spending is raise taxes while continuing to spend. So no, I don't support the Obmessiah's position.

Spending isn't the issue people make it out to be. They love to, because China, but China barely has any of our debt.

Taxation is a problem. We need to go back to the same marginal tax rates as when we had a strong middle class. People act like it's a recent thing that the middle class is in decline, as if it can happen in 4 years instead of 30.

Pretty much there's a nice divide between people that still believe America is the end all and be all in the world, and that it can just print personal income, and people that realize that America is competing on a global economy and that personal income is disappearing to other nations yet somehow growing at the very top. That growth is coming from somewhere. If it isn't other nations it must be... the middle class!

Bodolza wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:31:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:25:
Don't just raise taxes while still spending out of control like both parties are currently doing.

Wow. After your previous rants, I'm a bit surprised that you support Obama's position on spending.

Mingus wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 16:05:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 15:52:

We have to make cuts and lots of them or we eventually go bankrupt, period, why is that so hard for libs to comprehend? That doesn't even play into party lines, it makes no difference who's in office. Why are liberals so deathly afraid of coming to the understanding that we can't substain going the way we are. It's just not humanly possible I'm sorry.

You forgot the second part, cuts yes, but tax revenue will also have to rise in order for the US to get out from under the debt their in. Until and unless the GOP throw Grover Norquist (sp?) and his no tax increase pledge under the bus, spending cuts alone will not solve the problem. You asked for reality, so deal with it.

Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 15:45:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 15:18:

Cutter wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 15:08:
Oh don't mind Thunbder, everyone knows by now that like most of the rank and file GOP he'll never let actual facts stand in the way of a good rant against the Democrats. Obama isn't a miracle worker and it's hard to get anything done when the GOP oppose the man at every turn no matter how much he strives to cross the aisle and work together. And how would Romney's plans be any better? Oh wait, he doesn't have any. At leas none that he's shared publicly. What we've seen privately is that he believes at least 47% of the country are parasites who shouldn't even be entitled to food. Yeah, I can see where the GOP is a real boon to working people everywhere just like they always are...cut taxes on the rich and big biz, farm out domestic jobs, keep letting the military-industrial complex bankrupt the country. And the most fascinating part is they convince their followers to believe that all the resultant problem of that is the fault of the democrats. Amazing!!! It's like the greatest illusion of all time.

And yes, there are pretty major differences in the left and right, just go google some voting records.

The fact of the matter is Cutter, his party controlled both the house and the senate for his first 2 years of office and he still couldn't even pass a budget. (still waiting btw) Yet it's still Bush's fault, or the Republicans fault, or its little Timmy down the street's fault. Clinton actually worked with the Republicans, if you can honestly say Obama has done the same I'll just come out and say it bluntly, you're an idiot.

Liberals amaze me at their ability to consistantly blame everyone else yet manage to never take responsibility for anything unless it's a good thing.

I think you've proved Cutter's point yet again. No, the Democrats did not control Congress for 2 years.

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 15:18:
Spending to the point of oblivion for the sake of spending to the point of obvlion is bad regardless of what party you're affliated with. Common sense man. And I'm sorry if taxing the 1% a little more which realistically won't make a difference without making significant cuts, along with a healthcare tax which is essentially what obamacare is, another revenue stream to spend spend spend, aren't exactly top of my list of great ideas.

And yet again... spending has come down under Obama. Taxing the 1% is just a part of the solution, not the entirety of it. I remember a while back the GOP was all about how "every little bit counts" when it comes to cutting. Same holds true here. We don't need one silver bullet. We need a lot of changes that add up. I don't agree with some of what Obama has done or what he's likely to do if re-elected, but Romney is a far worse choice. He won't even tell us what he's going to do, and he seems to change positions on everything. And what's even worse is that he's going to have a whole crazy train of these GOP jackasses, who've been proving their ignorance and fanaticism on a regular basis, following him in if he wins. Why would I vote for that?

Bodolza wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 15:37:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 15:18:
The fact of the matter is Cutter, his party controlled both the house and the senate for his first 2 years of office and he still couldn't even pass a budget.

This isn't true. He had control for about 4 months - 2 of which they weren't in session. Whoever told you that is lying to you. They are controlling you through their lies. I urge you to stop believing those who lie to you.

Spending to the point of oblivion for the sake of spending to the point of obvlion is bad regardless of what party you're affliated with.

PropheT already provides some facts about this, and NO party is advocating your view. Why do you think this way?

Cutter wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 15:08:
Oh don't mind Thunbder, everyone knows by now that like most of the rank and file GOP he'll never let actual facts stand in the way of a good rant against the Democrats. Obama isn't a miracle worker and it's hard to get anything done when the GOP oppose the man at every turn no matter how much he strives to cross the aisle and work together. And how would Romney's plans be any better? Oh wait, he doesn't have any. At leas none that he's shared publicly. What we've seen privately is that he believes at least 47% of the country are parasites who shouldn't even be entitled to food. Yeah, I can see where the GOP is a real boon to working people everywhere just like they always are...cut taxes on the rich and big biz, farm out domestic jobs, keep letting the military-industrial complex bankrupt the country. And the most fascinating part is they convince their followers to believe that all the resultant problem of that is the fault of the democrats. Amazing!!! It's like the greatest illusion of all time.

And yes, there are pretty major differences in the left and right, just go google some voting records.

Verno wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 14:54:

RollinThundr wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 14:31:

jacobvandy wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 13:56:
Lately I've been leaning toward the point of view that Obama being re-elected would be better for us than Romney getting in. The problem with ousting an incumbent is the false perception of change associated with it... That would lead many outraged and outspoken Americans to calm down and stop paying attention to what's really going on, because they assume a change in president will mean a change in policy. "OH YEAH, we kicked him out! Good job fellas, now we can go home..."

Meanwhile, I have zero confidence whatsoever that Romney will do anything substantially different than Obama has been doing. As much as I would like to see it proven that R vs. D doesn't mean a goddamn thing in mainstream politics anymore, it would be too detrimental to the current growing subculture of dissent. So, I hope Obama wins, if only to further stoke the fires burning beneath the feet of the angry mobs. Maybe four more years of his "hope and change" will finally spur some improvements around here.

I think we pretty much know what we're getting with Obama. A big spender who flat out refuses to compromise to get anything done who won't even seriously talk about cuts unless it's military, which is crazy when you're fighting 3 wars essentially. Yet he'll win because he's a better public speaker and more "hip" with the hipsters.

It's simply amazing to me that most Americans seem to not care about the massive amount of debt he's added in just 4 short years. Obama was so critical of Bush adding 4 trillion of debt over 8 years, he just had to top him adding 5 trillion in only 4. Yep let's all vote for Obama, bankrupting the country and selling our souls to a communinst nation in China are wonderful ideals.

I would have to vote with my conscience first and there are too many question marks surrounding the changes Romney wants and what policies he will dismantle. For better or for worse Obama mostly has actual plans for his ideas so it should be no surprise that people are going with the known quantity, no one likes an unknown in politics. I will likely just abstain from voting altogether, it's a cop out but at least I'll feel good about it.

When you're trying to assign blame, look no further than the kooks in our own party who ruined a decent female voter push with rape comments and talk about abortion policy regression.

jacobvandy wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 13:56:
Lately I've been leaning toward the point of view that Obama being re-elected would be better for us than Romney getting in. The problem with ousting an incumbent is the false perception of change associated with it... That would lead many outraged and outspoken Americans to calm down and stop paying attention to what's really going on, because they assume a change in president will mean a change in policy. "OH YEAH, we kicked him out! Good job fellas, now we can go home..."

Meanwhile, I have zero confidence whatsoever that Romney will do anything substantially different than Obama has been doing. As much as I would like to see it proven that R vs. D doesn't mean a goddamn thing in mainstream politics anymore, it would be too detrimental to the current growing subculture of dissent. So, I hope Obama wins, if only to further stoke the fires burning beneath the feet of the angry mobs. Maybe four more years of his "hope and change" will finally spur some improvements around here.

nin wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 10:36:

sauron wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 10:20:

nin wrote on Nov 6, 2012, 09:59:
Voted Friday. Now I get to sit back and watch the fireworks. And being a glutton for punishment, I'm sure I'll be following it all night.

I'm unable to vote (foreign passport - Mordor; also, the Lidless Eye has no hands). However, Ive been absolutely glued to the Five Thirty-Eight page for weeks:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

Unbiased political statistics analysis done with hard math - very interesting. Honestly, it really is!

I'm not sure if I believe those numbers or not. I think because he seems farther away than a few of the other polls. But I have been following it the past few days...

Guess we'll find out tonight. (Assuming it's resolved) No matter who "wins" half the country is going to be pissed tomorrow.

edit: I've been reading http://electoral-vote.com/ since the 04 election, and he seems to nail it, most of the time.

Beamer wrote on Nov 5, 2012, 11:28:
EVERYTHING WAS BETTER WHEN I WAS WIDE EYED AND YOUNGER!



I always enjoy how little people realize that their personal point in life greatly effected how they viewed the product of that time. There's someone, somewhere, claiming rap was never better than when MC Hammer did it, because rap was exciting and new to him personally at that time.

Games today do almost everything better than previously. They're less cheap. They're more focused. They actually tell stories. Hell, I know the plot of Borderlands 2. I consider that something of a miracle. Somehow Gearbox managed to tell that story coherently. Does anyone know the plot of Metroid? How about Quake? Did anyone ever know why they were doing anything in particular in Doom?

Sure, certain game styles have died out. Turn-based, story-heavy JRPGs, for instance, are no longer popular. FF selling poorly isn't a sign that games are worse, it's a sign that those style games just aren't popular.

The real complaint people can have is that everything is homogenized at the top. Much like what happened with radio and network TV, no one will fully commit to a risk because anything unique may have a limited audience. Fine, whatever. Did this kill music? No, because with the homogenization of radio came the rise of mp3s and spotify. Did this kill TV? No, because with the homogenization of network TV (i.e., Terra Nova being a kiddie show) came the rise of AMC, FX, HBO and Showtime.
With the homogenization of EA will come the rise of anything else, thanks to convenient digital distribution. It's still hard, as video games cost a fortune, as movies do, but man, if FTL and Orcs Must Die 2 aren't up there as 2 of the 5 best games of the year...