Note: I am a libertarian (mostly). This is posted for fun, and nothing more and I am not looking to start a fight over beliefs or what not.

So, I was going to rank the GOP debate in DnD terms. But, I decided that I know far more about The Elder Scrolls Skyrim, than I do about DnD, and I don't want to be a complete rip.

So I am going to do so by Skryim.

First off, the Moderators: Alduin, Alduin's cousin twice removed. And Alduin's drunk uncle.

Ted Cruz: The Dragonborn. Shouts in Skyrim are "deadly verbal debates" that "personify a dragon's voice into a physical force". Ted Cruz not only made the Moderators look stupid, but he made them look super stupid. He remembered each of there questions to the other candidates and in the order they were asked without writing anything down. He slapped em like the three stooges.

John Kasich: He is that clown from the Dark Brotherhood that always attacks you but is way too whimpy to actually beat you. He really had nothing to say except "I am here to be here", just like the Dark Brotherhood's note you find on him.

Chris Christie: Meh. he is basically The Throat of the World mountain that has the ability to talk. But aside from very few good comments, everything he said is as empty as the wind that blows passed you when you actually climb the throat of the world.

Carly Fiorina: I mean, she is smart. She isn't really a politician. I think of her like the Blacksmith in Whiterun. She is useful, and she says some nice things and sells you some good items. But she really isn't anyone you want for Jarl of Whiterun.

Rand Paul: I love the guy, but his performance was stale, stale, stale. I think of him as the former King of Solitude. He was great and interesting, but like the character in the game, he had nothing to say, and is essentially dead. I hope he has something to say more in the next debates.

Jeb Bush: Jeb Bush is Jeb Bush. I think he is pretty much Maiq the Liar. He will tell you truth and lies and doesn't want you to know which is which. And once you ask a couple questions he just tells you "I am tired now, go bother someone else."

Ben Carson: Esbern. He is Esbern. He is really smart, knows what he is talking about, and wants whats best for us. He wants to stop the dragons, and I am happy for that. He has great leadership qualities, and I think he could really be a benefit.

Marco Rubio: Hes great. I really hate a few of his policies and ideas, but he is great. I liken him to any of the followers you can have as the Dragonborn. Hey help when they can, but because of some of his ideas, he can hinder you a bit and get in the way of your attacks on the enemies. Probably set off the traps around you and get you hurt too.

Mike Huckabee: Himsker, or whatever. The babbling idiot in Whiterun that shouts about Talos. Its nice that he shouts about Talos, but he doesn't sound very good and I just hate him.

Donald Trump: Hm... This is a hard one.His hair reminds me of the Giants in the game. But his face reminds me of a hagraven. He wants to "fix" things like General Tullius, but he sounds more like Ulfric Stormcloak.-

I'm going to say he is a falmer. He is good at what he did, but he is bad and blinded by what he thinks now. He is super aggressive, but no in the smart Ted Cruz like way. Its like he smells you or hears you and attacks you, but when you beat him up a few times, he just runs away all wobbly and curses you from the distance.

i just came here to so who donald trump was. nobody gives a shit about the rest of them.

*Insert differing political opinion stated in a passive-aggressive tone here*

*Insert differing political opinion stated in a passive-aggressive tone here*

*Insert differing video game opinion stated in a macho-aggressive tone here*

>Not likening any political debate in Witcher terms.

Bernie would obviously be Iorveth, or Yeavinn.

And maybe Trump would be King Radovid "the top cunt" V.

Trump is Radovid. To make Redania great again, you have to kick out all the Mexicans Mages.

Trump is Radovid. To make Redania great again, you have to kick out all the Mexicans Mages.

Spear them up the ass and burn all those who declares he sucks flaccid cock.

Anyone knows some good comparisons for the liberals?

>Not likening any political debate in Witcher terms.

Bernie would obviously be Iorveth, or Yeavinn.

And maybe Trump would be King Radovid "the top cunt" V.

Trump is Radovid. To make Redania great again, you have to kick out all the Mexicans Mages.

Ben Carson is The Bloody Baron. He has experience with medical anomolies, but no matter what he does he'll end up playing second fiddle to Trump.

Chris Christie is Dijkstra. Like, if you know Witcher and you know the politic cycle, this doesn't need explaining.

Carly Fiorina is... I don't know, I can't come up with anything.

Rand Paul is Aryan La Valette. All he wants is for the government to leave him and his friends alone.

Jeb Bush is Birna Brand. He's annoyed that the crown doesn't stay in the family and is working to change that.

Huckabee is Caleb Menge. Nothing pleases his heart more than the smell of a burning heretic.

Obama is Foltest. He's really damned cool, but people tend to get pissed at him easily.

Sanders is Saskia the Dragonslayer. His views are considered too Utopian by most, but he holds sway over some backwoods mountain territory with a name that starts with a V.

Hillary is Phillipa Eilhart. You don't know what she is planning exactly, and she has the women's vote.

And the Koch Brothers are Emhyr var Emreis. It doesn't matter what happens to the rest, they are going to win in the end.

And the Koch Brothers are Emhyr var Emreis. It doesn't matter what happens to the rest, they are going to win in the end.

The Koch Foundation is the 14th largest organizational political donor in the U.S. Among private individuals, the two Koch brothers themselves are #10 and #25.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

The Koch Foundation is the 14th largest organizational political donor in the U.S. Among private individuals, the two Koch brothers themselves are #10 and #25.

Yeh, I thought it would be more accurate to say something more generic like "The wealthy" or whatever, but I decided to go down the lazy "Koch" road for the pop culture cred.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

The Koch Foundation is the 14th largest organizational political donor in the U.S. Among private individuals, the two Koch brothers themselves are #10 and #25.

17 of the top 20 political donor organizations are Worker's Unions. So its not like the left has any less donors than the right.

And who cares? They make their money, they can use it how they want.

<Snipped quote by The Nexerus>

17 of the top 20 political donor organizations are Worker's Unions. So its not like the left has any less donors than the right.

And who cares? They make their money, they can use it how they want.

Well, the concern is that contributions from especially wealthy people creates corruption. If a politician's career is dependent on a few especially wealthy contributors, then those politicians will be under quite a bit of pressure to do what those contributors want despite what the consequences are. This is a problem all across the board - I'm a leftie through and through, but I'm not going to pretend the Dems are somehow not beholden to big money as well. Shit, both main parties are terminally corrupt.

So yeh, it is important to care. Just because a person can legally claim something as their property doesn't mean they are relieved of all moral obligations. If you don't believe that, ask the King of France. Or Jefferson Davis for that matter.

<Snipped quote by Kakumei>

Well, the concern is that contributions from especially wealthy people creates corruption. If a politician's career is dependent on a few especially wealthy contributors, then those politicians will be under quite a bit of pressure to do what those contributors want despite what the consequences are. This is a problem all across the board - I'm a leftie through and through, but I'm not going to pretend the Dems are somehow not beholden to big money as well. Shit, both main parties are terminally corrupt.

So yeh, it is important to care. Just because a person can legally claim something as their property doesn't mean they are relieved of all moral obligations. If you don't believe that, ask the King of France. Or Jefferson Davis for that matter.

Well yeah, I mean every single one of the Dem candidate's are "One Percenters".

I don't believe that having money or using money is morally wrong. Money is amoral. The corruption comes from the heart, not the amount of money that someone has.

Anyone knows some good comparisons for the liberals?

Well, Hilary is Satan, for one....

And the Koch Brothers are Emhyr var Emreis. It doesn't matter what happens to the rest, they are going to win in the end.

I would liken Emhyr to someone like Putin or perhaps even Xi Jinping, representing any one of the two rival international powers. However we then no longer stop finding national comparisons and start drawing up comparisons to the global world.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Well yeah, I mean every single one of the Dem candidate's are "One Percenters".

I don't believe that having money or using money is morally wrong. Money is amoral. The corruption comes from the heart, not the amount of money that someone has.

Well, people are more complicated then that. Money in general isn't innately evil (you aren't being evil when you purchase a stereo for instance, unless it is an evil stereo), but money does represent power in our system. Arguably more so than individual government office does, especially in our system of checks and balances. Power isn't innately evil either, but the quest for power taps into a lot of strong human desires and emotions, and the maintenance of power does the same.

So if you take an especially rich donor - any rich donor, I'm not specifying which political affiliation - they will be most likely driven quite strongly to maintain their money. Even if what they do is morally questionable, the fact that that thing is why they are so wealthy can easily blind them to it's moral problems. And if they can use their money to buy legislation, and they can buy politicians so that popular opposition is quenched, that is corruption. The problem with making it your own political goal as an average citizen to protect these people is peculiar, because they can clearly look after themselves politically at the moment, but the same can't be said for the rest of us.

As for 1 percenters, that is a meaningless phrase really. I have an uncle that technically fits in this category but he isn't exactly influencing the political process with his wealth. What makes a person part of the super-wealthy (or aristocracy, lets call it what it is) is their ability to live souly off of the interest on their capital. And in that case... surprisingly, not all candidates fit that bill. It doesn't even cut completely across political boundaries.

So anyway, to your thesis, I don't think corruption is an innate trait. Clearly you need something to be corrupt for, and money is the most obvious candidate. There are plenty of snake-oil salesmen and con-men in this world being corrupt among us commoners of course, but they don't have the capital to purchase politicians like the aristocratic hucksters have, so it would be dishonest to paint both as equally problematic. And there really isn't any reason to make excuses for them unless you think you will somehow get that much money (hint: you won't.)

Benjamin Carson
A Redguard Greybeard! ;)

<Snipped quote by Kakumei>

Well, people are more complicated then that. Money in general isn't innately evil (you aren't being evil when you purchase a stereo for instance, unless it is an evil stereo), but money does represent power in our system. Arguably more so than individual government office does, especially in our system of checks and balances. Power isn't innately evil either, but the quest for power taps into a lot of strong human desires and emotions, and the maintenance of power does the same.

So if you take an especially rich donor - any rich donor, I'm not specifying which political affiliation - they will be most likely driven quite strongly to maintain their money. Even if what they do is morally questionable, the fact that that thing is why they are so wealthy can easily blind them to it's moral problems. And if they can use their money to buy legislation, and they can buy politicians so that popular opposition is quenched, that is corruption. The problem with making it your own political goal as an average citizen to protect these people is peculiar, because they can clearly look after themselves politically at the moment, but the same can't be said for the rest of us.

"Maintaining ones money" isn't a thing. Sure, government takes a shit ton of your money if you are in a higher tax bracket, and for a country that isn't supposed to be taxed like that per Constitutional regulation, it is 100% understandable that people would want to change that. Other than that, the only way to "maintain you money" is to not spend it.

<Snipped quote by Kakumei>
As for 1 percenters, that is a meaningless phrase really. I have an uncle that technically fits in this category but he isn't exactly influencing the political process with his wealth. What makes a person part of the super-wealthy (or aristocracy, lets call it what it is) is their ability to live souly off of the interest on their capital. And in that case... surprisingly, not all candidates fit that bill. It doesn't even cut completely across political boundaries.

One percenters refers to people in the top 1 percent of the tax bracket. It has nothing to do with who a person is politically affiliated with, nor does it have anything to do with how they spend or use their money.

<Snipped quote by Kakumei>
So anyway, to your thesis, I don't think corruption is an innate trait. Clearly you need something to be corrupt for, and money is the most obvious candidate. There are plenty of snake-oil salesmen and con-men in this world being corrupt among us commoners of course, but they don't have the capital to purchase politicians like the aristocratic hucksters have, so it would be dishonest to paint both as equally problematic. And there really isn't any reason to make excuses for them unless you think you will somehow get that much money (hint: you won't.)

Again, I am not saying that money can't be used in a negative way. I am saying money is an amoral thing. Just like a gun.

You can pick up a gun to rob a store, or you can use it to stop a woman from being raped.

You can use money to build a homeless shelter, or you can use it to fund drug runners.

Blaming it on the money, for the intent of the person who is using it, is naive and doesn't make sense. Government is something that, throughout the ages, has been highly corrosive. Government has the power to control masses in ways that make people like Stalin or Hitler fawn over and kill to keep. Pol Pot killed all the white people in his country when he took it over just so he could maintain economic power over then, and ended up destroying his entire counties economic system for it.

And American government is proving each day that its corrupt and flexing those muscles. Fmr General Portreaus was completely destroyed by his mistress handling classified materials inappropriately, but personal email using Hillary Clinton does the same thing (and so far according to the FBI, quite a bit of) with classified materials and she skates the system like its highschool.

You clearly are stuck in your position and it really might not be worth continuing this little debate. So, enjoy your Halloween and I'll see you around eventually.

"Maintaining ones money" isn't a thing. Sure, government takes a shit ton of your money if you are in a higher tax bracket, and for a country that isn't supposed to be taxed like that per Constitutional regulation, it is 100% understandable that people would want to change that. Other than that, the only way to "maintain you money" is to not spend it.

Well, no no no, at this level most of their money is in investments that must be 'maintained'. They aren't sitting on hard cash necessarily, or at least most of their wealth isn't in hard cash, but rather in capital who's value is entirely conditional. The value of stock in an oil company, for instance, is only worth as much as that company's ability to turn a profit.

One percenters refers to people in the top 1 percent of the tax bracket. It has nothing to do with who a person is politically affiliated with, nor does it have anything to do with how they spend or use their money.

I am aware what it means, i'm just saying that the term gets abused a bit. Saying that most politicians are 1 percenters doesn't mean much because, as you said, it is just a tax bracket and doesn't necessarily describe as strong a divide in society as, say, the difference between people who make their entire income off of owning capital and people who's livelihood is based on some sort of work or service.

Again, I am not saying that money can't be used in a negative way. I am saying money is an amoral thing. Just like a gun.

You can pick up a gun to rob a store, or you can use it to stop a woman from being raped.

You can use money to build a homeless shelter, or you can use it to fund drug runners.

Blaming it on the money, for the intent of the person who is using it, is naive and doesn't make sense. Government is something that, throughout the ages, has been highly corrosive. Government has the power to control masses in ways that make people like Stalin or Hitler fawn over and kill to keep. Pol Pot killed all the white people in his country when he took it over just so he could maintain economic power over then, and ended up destroying his entire counties economic system for it.

And American government is proving each day that its corrupt and flexing those muscles. Fmr General Portreaus was completely destroyed by his mistress handling classified materials inappropriately, but personal email using Hillary Clinton does the same thing (and so far according to the FBI, quite a bit of) with classified materials and she skates the system like its highschool.

You clearly are stuck in your position and it really might not be worth continuing this little debate. So, enjoy your Halloween and I'll see you around eventually.

Ok, a few things about your terms. Your first point negates the second; in the same way money is just a concept or tool, so is government. All a government is, when you break it down, is the term we use to to describe entities that can make and enforce laws. And these things happen completely naturally. If you were to get rid of our bureaucratic form of government, something else would inevitably take its place. If it were me, I'd place my bets on competent owners of important swaths of property enforcing a sort of proto-feudalistic system of strong-man law, but shit... this really hasn't happened enough times in the modern world to get a good handle on what would truly happen. The closestwe have actually gotten to this sort of scenario is third world governments in places like Somalia and Yemen where, when the government collapses, it is replaced by tribal affiliations and crime bosses. But that is there, we don't know what the righteous fuck would happen here, and I would hate to know.

The reality, as you accepted with money but denied with government, is that people are confusing and fickle things in which no single law can ever completely organize. The Libertarians commit the same mistake (I say this as a ex-libertarian. We all make mistakes when we are young) as the Communists in thinking that all you have to do is knock out one corrupt institution and history is over, we are done, we can all be happy.

Corruption is going to happen because everybody is generally out for their own good. No matter what institution you have, there will be problems. The nice thing about our government is that at the very least, we can fucking vote for government officials. In my opinion, that is the best tool we have available to us regardless of how imperfect the entire system is.

And as for the amorality of objects in general, I agree with the principle, but assuming we aren't worried about justice for inanimate objects, everybody across the board generally agrees we should police objects on some level. Like, no matter how right wing anybody is, I doubt you could find many people who would defend an average citizen's right to own a fully armed nuclear bomb. It is an object too, and a completely amoral one, but allowing just anybody to have one is irresponsible. Once we've all agreed that property rights have some reasonable limitations, the goal for all of us is to find what degree of limitation is best for the common good.