I have a feeling that due to the tensions that are going on at the moment, I honestly think most things will stay serious for the next few years. The reasons behind that are because we're not far removed from 2016 just yet (which was a stormy year). The Trump presidency is an endless destructive nightmare and some people are still on "offended" mode to where if someone says something even if it's minor, that insulted person will go on a rampage.

I have a feeling that due to the tensions that are going on at the moment, I honestly think most things will stay serious for the next few years. The reasons behind that are because we're not far removed from 2016 just yet (which was a stormy year). The Trump presidency is an endless destructive nightmare and some people are still on "offended" mode to where if someone says something even if it's minor, that insulted person will go on a rampage.


I honestly think pop culture is going to get lighter and music is as well, in response to terrorist attacks happening every single day.
People are getting sick of all these Shooting games, Walking dead rip offs.

The fact of the matter is that humans (in general) are aggressive and tribalisitc beings. The world used be much more violent than it is now....TV and the Web make that violence seem more widespread than it is but it's not.

When it comes to the tensions, I don't know when or if that will calm down. I just heard of the attack in London again but this time it seems like it was a group of White men who targeted and mowed down Middle Eastern Muslim people. This attack just feeds ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups and does nothing to help the situation or tensions that are going on. You have religious extremists in both Christianity and Islam who want a "holy war" against each other but that's nothing new (The Umayyad conquest of Hispania & The Crusades).

I honestly think pop culture is going to get lighter and music is as well, in response to terrorist attacks happening every single day.
People are getting sick of all these Shooting games, Walking Dead rip-offs.
I hope so. The dark and serious tone is getting irritating that I just can't handle it anymore. It's almost everywhere!


The fact of the matter is that humans (in general) are aggressive and tribalistic beings. The world used to be much more violent than it is now....TV and the Web make that violence seem more widespread than it is but it's not.

When it comes to the tensions, I don't know when or if that will calm down. I just heard of the attack in London again but this time it seems like it was a group of White men who targeted and mowed down Middle Eastern Muslim people. This attack just feeds ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups and does nothing to help the situation or tensions that are going on. You have religious extremists in both Christianity and Islam who want a "holy war" against each other but that's nothing new (The Umayyad conquest of Hispania & The Crusades).
Yeah, that's true since we will likely defend what's ours. ;D

I really hope it does calm down soon. I understand that violence has decreased compared to before and that is absolutely a great aspect; however, all these heated hostilities are not a walk in the park. :-\\ What happened last Wednesday was devastating.

I honestly think pop culture is going to get lighter and music is as well, in response to terrorist attacks happening every single day.
People are getting sick of all these Shooting games, Walking dead rip offs.


Yeah it's time to go back to a lighter pop culture.  With what is going on in the country right now, all this dystopian fiction is hitting too close to home.  The Walking Dead was good when it started but it's lasted past its expiration.  Time for it to go.

I would say 2017 culture is mostly still products of the Obama era, since most artists/producers/studios had been preparing current music, tv shows, and movies since before Trump took office.  In 2018, we'll probably start seeing Trump's impact on pop culture a lot more.

Culture was lighter in the early '10s than the mid '10s.  I do really hope we end the decade on a lighter note.

Yeah, that's true since we will likely defend what's ours. ;D
That's why some people (of all backgrounds) feel threatened by things such as interracial marriage, integration, mass immigration, multiculturalism, etc.


I really hope it does calm down soon. I understand that violence has decreased compared to before and that is absolutely a great aspect; however, all these heated hostilities are not a walk in the park. :-\\ What happened last Wednesday was devastating.

Yeah that was devasting. It will probably never go away though. Humans are f*cked up.

That's why some people (of all backgrounds) feel threatened by things such as interracial marriage, integration, mass immigration, multiculturalism, etc.
Yeah that was devasting. It will probably never go away though. Humans are f*cked up.
Yah, that's why I have come to accept that not everything will be equal.

Yeah,  we are definitely flawed,  brutal creatures; however,  we are just as affectionate and polite as other animals ;) ;D

Yah, that's why I have come to accept that not everything will be equal.
Expand on this (I just want to hear more).


Yeah,  we are definitely flawed,  brutal creatures; however,  we are just as affectionate and polite as other animals ;) ;D

I agree ;).

Somewhere between 2019 to 2023 we might start to see real changes happen.

Expand on this (I just want to here more).
Some people just prefer things that are versions of themselves. I just took black history and it turns out that black people didn't truly care about integration, but rather they were concerned about economic growth.

I have a feeling that due to the tensions that are going on at the moment, I honestly think most things will stay serious for the next few years. The reasons behind that are because we're not far removed from 2016 just yet (which was a stormy year). The Trump presidency is an endless destructive nightmare and some people are still on "offended" mode to where if someone says something even if it's minor, that insulted person will go on a rampage.

2017 I think is more of a stormy year than 2016 in some ways and I don't see that changing any time soon. Who knows if 2020 will be cheerful, we can't predict that. I'd love it to be, but that's beside the point. You know all this has to come to a head at some point, but that may very well spill over into the 2020's as well.

I hate 2014-present.

2017 I think is more of a stormy year than 2016 in some ways and I don't see that changing any time soon. Who knows if 2020 will be cheerful, we can't predict that. I'd love it to be, but that's beside the point. You know all this has to come to a head at some point, but that may very well spill over into the 2020's as well.


I would agree.  This entire culture, since 2013, has had a dark tone to it.  I think 2012 is the last year that still had its innocence.  Hopefully by 2020, Trump will be out and if that happens, I think things will quiet down some finally.  All of our current societal problems are manufactured.  We aren't currently dealing with a war or major recession.  What we are dealing with is strong divisions along ideological lines.  We have half the country that wants to move forward into the 21st century and half the country that wants to return to the 1950s, before the civil rights era.

Things felt pretty dark during the 2008/2009 stock market crash. But yeah, 2013 was when things started really going dark!

My honest opinion is that things are going to get even more intense in the 2020's. The 30 year period from 80's to the 00's was relatively quiet. Things were bound to get rocky sooner, or later.

My opinion is of that the problems of the 2020's will be from the build up since the beginning of the 00's. But that by 2020 these problems will be blatant, and in your face. I believe that the 2020's and even 2030's are going to be explosive!

Somewhere between 2019 to 2023 we might start to see real changes happen.


Will Trump be out of office by that time?

Will Trump be out of office by that time?

Hopefully and I mean that I would be so ecstatic if he was out of office before that time.

However, if not, then his first term in office expires on January 20, 2021. If he surprisingly gets elected to a second term then that would expire on January 20, 2025.

I would agree.  This entire culture, since 2013, has had a dark tone to it.  I think 2012 is the last year that still had its innocence.  Hopefully by 2020, Trump will be out and if that happens, I think things will quiet down some finally.  All of our current societal problems are manufactured.  We aren't currently dealing with a war or major recession.  What we are dealing with is strong divisions along ideological lines.  We have half the country that wants to move forward into the 21st century and half the country that wants to return to the 1950s, before the civil rights era.

2011 was the last year of "innocence", IMO.

My rebuttal:
1. The USA isn't divided 50/50 between Trump and "Other". Only approximately 36-40% of the US supports Trump and that number will get lower (probably....hopefully).

2. 2012 was not "innocent". 2012 was when Trayvon Martin was killed (in February 2012)  by George Zimmerman and his death started Black Lives Matter. In 2012, there was also the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in Aurora, CO at a screening of The Dark Knight in July. Then, in December 2012, you had the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, CT perpetrated by Adam Lanza.

3. 2011 was the last time that the country was mostly wholly united (especially in the wake of Osama Bin Laden's death).

My honest opinion is that things are going to get even more intense in the 2020's. The 30 year period from 80's to the 00's was relatively quiet. Things were bound to get rocky sooner, or later.

My opinion is of that the problems of the 2020's will be from the build up since the beginning of the 00's. But that by 2020 these problems will be blatant, and in your face. I believe that the 2020's and even 2030's are going to be explosive!


I hope you are wrong.  I am seriously worried about civil war at this point.  I've heard a lot of people say they are ready to fight if they impeach Trump.  They view the entire Trump scandal as a liberal attempt to undermine the election with no basis in truth behind it at all.

In reality, a lot of this goes back to 9/11.  What I don't understand is why people are so much more cynical, afraid, and Islamophobic now than they were in the years directly after the attacks?  Also, terrorism is a very big problem and it may be controversial for me to say this, but I think it is far overblown by the media to keep everyone in a perpetual state of fear.  This is exactly what the terrorists want.

2011 was the last year of "innocence", IMO.

My rebuttal:
1. The USA isn't divided 50/50 between Trump and "Other". Only approximately 36-40% of the US supports Trump and that number will get lower (probably....hopefully).

2. 2012 was not "innocent". 2012 was when Trayvon Martin was killed (in February 2012)  by George Zimmerman and his death started Black Lives Matter. In 2012, there was also the Aurora movie theater shooting by James Holmes in Aurora, CO at a screening of The Dark Knight in July. Then, in December 2012, you had the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, CT perpetrated by Adam Lanza.

3. 2011 was the last time that the country was mostly wholly united (especially in the wake of Osama Bin Laden's death).


You are right here.  Thanks for reminding me.  Yes, 2011 was the last relatively placid year.  2012 is when things really started to explode.

Some polls have Trump polling at 50%.  Truth is, nobody knows for sure what his numbers are really like.  Part of the problem with Trump, and this is one reason none of the polls predicted his win, is he has a stigma around him and a lot of people won't publicly admit to supporting him.

Yeah it's time to go back to a lighter pop culture.  With what is going on in the country right now, all this dystopian fiction is hitting too close to home.  The Walking Dead was good when it started but it's lasted past its expiration.  Time for it to go.

I would say 2017 culture is mostly still products of the Obama era, since most artists/producers/studios had been preparing current music, tv shows, and movies since before Trump took office.  In 2018, we'll probably start seeing Trump's impact on pop culture a lot more.

Culture was lighter in the early '10s than the mid '10s.  I do really hope we end the decade on a lighter note.


Yeah, I keep seeing posts on how people are getting annoyed by these super hero movies as well, but on the shooting games side, I keep seeing threads in other forums getting sick of Call Of Duty, and all of these type of games, It seems like EVERY game that comes out is this shooting game set in WW2 or in the post dystopic future, its like ENOUGH! Walking dead was on last night, and I just skipped right past it because the show is PAST it's prime, all of these type of shows tbh. Some of the networks have realized the serialized DRAMA thing created by HBO is now a meme. In late 2008 when the crash happened you had very upbeat electro pop to balance out the feeling of despair, I think to 2009's I got a feeling by the black eye peas, it was like a pick me up in a world full of uncertainty. Now we are in bad straits in the world again (maybe even worse before, while at the same time having a good economy) and there is no music to off set it really. YEs there is a few pop gems coming here and there that are upbeat, but you know what I mean.

You are right here.  Thanks for reminding me.  Yes, 2011 was the last relatively placid year.  2012 is when things really started to explode.
You're welcome


Some polls have Trump polling at 50%.  Truth is, nobody knows for sure what his numbers are really like.  Part of the problem with Trump, and this is one reason none of the polls predicted his win, is he has a stigma around him and a lot of people won't publicly admit to supporting him.

There's only one poll that shows him at 50% and that's a right leaning organization called Rasmussen (or however, it's spelled). Rasmussen is not so reputable. The rest of polls show his approval rating around 36-40%...which I think is pretty accurate.

Yeah, I keep seeing posts on how people are getting annoyed by these super hero movies as well, but on the shooting games side, I keep seeing threads in other forums getting sick of Call Of Duty, and all of these type of games, It seems like EVERY game that comes out is this shooting game set in WW2 or in the post dystopic future, its like ENOUGH! Walking dead was on last night, and I just skipped right past it because the show is PAST it's prime, all of these type of shows tbh. Some of the networks have realized the serialized DRAMA thing created by HBO is now a meme. In late 2008 when the crash happened you had very upbeat electro pop to balance out the feeling of despair, I think to 2009's I got a feeling by the black eye peas, it was like a pick me up in a world full of uncertainty. Now we are in bad straits in the world again (maybe even worse before, while at the same time having a good economy) and there is no music to off set it really. YEs there is a few pop gems coming here and there that are upbeat, but you know what I mean.


I agree 100%

I would like to see less super hero movies.  It's getting to the point where I don't get excited for them anymore.  Their prime was 2012 through 2015, peaking with Guardians of the Galaxy.

If you have a PC, you have plenty of alternatives to AAA games.  Right now, we are in somewhat of a "golden age" of indie gaming.  With that said, I agree with you that CoD is worn out and past its prime.  As long as people keep buying it though, it will keep going.  AAA games in general are suffering from a lack of creativity and have since the late '00s.

I haven't watched the Walking Dead since 2013.  I thought it had jumped the shark in season 3.  Hard to believe its still going.

I agree about 2009 and its light pop culture to balance out the fear and uncertainty.  That was a dark year, but the culture was so awesome that I look back on it with extreme fondness.

but on the shooting games side, I keep seeing threads in other forums getting sick of Call Of Duty, and all of these type of games, It seems like EVERY game that comes out is this shooting game set in WW2 or in the post dystopic future, its like ENOUGH!

What? There hasn't been a major FPS video game set in WWII since 2008's Call of Duty: World at War. The 2000s was over saturated with WWII FPS games not the 2010s. The 2010s have been over saturated with futuristic FPS games....I'm sick of those games. I'm glad that last year Battlefield went to WWI with Battlefield 1 and this year COD is going back to it's roots (WWII) with Call of Duty: World War II. Hopefully, more different non-futuristic wars are covered like Vietnam and maybe even Korea.

What? There hasn't been a major FPS video game set in WWII since 2008's Call of Duty: World at War. The 2000s was over saturated with WWII FPS games not the 2010s. The 2010s have been over saturated with futuristic FPS games....I'm sick of those games. I'm glad that last year Battlefield went to WWI with Battlefield 1 and this year COD is going back to it's roots (WWII) with Call of Duty: World War II. Hopefully, more different non-futuristic wars are covered like Vietnam and maybe even Korea.


Ok not every game is ww2, but every game is this shooting rampage game set on some other world, There was a game set in ww2 tho that came out recently, Its getting really tiring.

What? There hasn't been a major FPS video game set in WWII since 2008's Call of Duty: World at War. The 2000s was over saturated with WWII FPS games not the 2010s. The 2010s have been over saturated with futuristic FPS games....I'm sick of those games. I'm glad that last year Battlefield went to WWI with Battlefield 1 and this year COD is going back to it's roots (WWII) with Call of Duty: World War II. Hopefully, more different non-futuristic wars are covered like Vietnam and maybe even Korea.


I think the entire CoD formula is tired no matter what skin they throw on it. I would like to see more story driven FPS games that aren't remakes or sequels to classics. There really hasn't been anything big since the '00s.

Ok not every game is ww2, but every game is this shooting rampage game set on some other world, There was a game set in ww2 tho that came out recently, Its getting really tiring.

There was no recent MAJOR WWII FPS game. The last was 2008's Call of Duty: World at War. Also, if you don't want to see video games that are a "shooting rampage set on some other world" then why even talk or think about them ::). Also, you don't have to play them.

I think the entire CoD formula is tired no matter what skin they throw on it. I would like to see more story driven FPS games that aren't remakes or sequels to classics. There really hasn't been anything big since the '00s.

Sequels and remakes are what drives the FPS genre.....so like it or leave it. Also, the most recent major FPS games have been neither a sequel or remake (2016's Battlefield 1 and the upcoming Call of Duty: World War II).

It just seems that you and John Titor just don't like FPS games that much (or at all), which is fine, but there are plenty of other games that you can play and the rest of 2017 and 2018 looks like it's going to be a great time for video games. Sequels and remakes are also what drives the video game industry, as a whole. Also, the 2010s has been the best decade for indie games EVER.

There was no recent MAJOR WWII FPS game. The last was 2008's Call of Duty: World at War. Also, if you don't want to see video games that are a "shooting rampage set on some other world" then why even talk or think about them ::). Also, you don't have to play them.

There def was a video game that that had come out in the last 2 years that had ww2 planes in it,  I played a level from it in best buy.
Maybe it was sub level but it was def set in the 20s-40s.

Sequels and remakes are what drives the FPS genre.....so like it or leave it. Also, the most recent major FPS games have been neither a sequel or remake (2016's Battlefield 1 and the upcoming Call of Duty: World War II).

It just seems that you and John Titor just don't like FPS games that much (or at all), which is fine, but there are plenty of other games that you can play and the rest of 2017 and 2018 looks like it's going to be a great time for video games. Sequels and remakes are also what drives the video game industry, as a whole. Also, the 2010s has been the best decade for indie games EVER.


I agree about indie games.

However, the endless CoD and Battlefield games coming out is the epitome of the rehashing I am talking about.  You are right, I don't like FPS games today, but I did like the genre up until around 2007.

There def was a video game that that had come out in the last 2 years that had ww2 planes in it,  I played a level from it in best buy.
Maybe it was sub level but it was def set in the 20s-40s.

That wasn't a full or MAJOR game (emphasis on the MAJOR part). There is an upcoming full/MAJOR FPS game set in World War II and that is Call of Duty: World War II (which I've already said multiple times) and it's coming out on November 3, 2017.

However, the endless CoD and Battlefield games coming out is the epitome of the rehashing I am talking about.  You are right, I don't like FPS games today, but I did like the genre up until around 2007.

Rehashing? How? It seems like you just dislike the Battlefield amd Call of Duty franchise as a whole because the most recent games in the series aren't rehashes.

2016's Battlefied 1 was set in World War I (yes....World War I....the first one not WWII). EA literally took a HUGE risk an set a FPS in WWI and you call that a rehash? ??? Rehash of what? How many FPS games do you know are set in WWI? ???

Also, Activision is literally listening to the fans who said that they were tired of the futuristic FPS's and so they decided to take the franchise back to it's roots and set a game in WWII.....the first COD game in 9 years to be set in WWII. The game is not a rehash or sequel to any of the previous games. What more do you want?

If you thought Walking Dead was dark, wait till you watch 13 Reasons Why!

2017 has been a good year for Ontario (Canada). The economy is very strong, a lot of my friends are getting jobs. GDP growth is close to 4% and unemployment hit its lowest since 2001. When I go meet my friends, it's so good to see them smiling again instead of looking down in shame like they have the past 2-3 years. I'm happy that they're happy! :D

As for pop culture, you guys are playing the wrong games. Get into Zelda and Persona! I don't play any shooters and I'm enjoying 2017 in gaming. I'll probably get flamed for this (or worse, ignored!) but it's already one of the best years in gaming of all time and we're not even in the holiday season yet. It's a blasphemous thing to say here, but it's a very common opinion outside these boards.

As for pop culture, you guys are playing the wrong games. Get into Zelda and Persona! I don't play any shooters and I'm enjoying 2017 in gaming. I'll probably get flamed for this (or worse, ignored!) but it's already one of the best years in gaming of all time and we're not even in the holiday season yet. It's a blasphemous thing to say here, but it's a very common opinion outside these boards.

Even though I'm not a fan of (or actually never played) Persona games and even though I'm not a huge fan of Zelda games....I totally agree with you.

If you don't like shooting games....there's plenty of others to play and 2017 is a great year for games so far (and the rest of the year looks great as well). 2018 also looks like it wants to immediately take 2017's video game crown :D.

I think this is a good thing, considering the low opinion I hold on the 2010s, especially since the middle of it. I would like the 2020s to be cheerful in terms of politics, but that's about it. I want a return of the 2000s next decade, culturally.

Call of Duty wouldn't still be so popular if it weren't for people like TheReignMan99 who like the games.  Nothing wrong with that.  I just don't like multiplayer shooters these days.  I was into Counter-Strike back in the day and played some of the early, pre-CoD 4 installments as well as Battlefield 1 and 2 and Unreal Tournament back in the '00s.  I really can't get into those kind of games these days.  TheReignMan99 is in the target demographic though.  Those games appeal most to teenagers and college students i.e. people who have the free time to actually be good at the games.  Once you are an adult and have responsibility, you can't spend enough time playing CoD to stand a chance against the teenagers that spend all day playing it.

Like music, video games tend to be generational.  My peak gaming years was probably 1998 through 2006.  People who grew up with '80s and early '90s video games typically didn't like that era.  I guess I am similar with disliking the current AAA games.

The bright spot in today's gaming, especially on PC, is indie games.  This is a great time for them so there is plenty out there to play if you don't like the CoD/Battlefield empire.

Call of Duty wouldn't still be so popular if it weren't for people like TheReignMan99 who like the games.  Nothing wrong with that.  I just don't like multiplayer shooters these days.  I was into Counter-Strike back in the day and played some of the early, pre-CoD 4 installments as well as Battlefield 1 and 2 and Unreal Tournament back in the '00s.  I really can't get into those kind of games these days.  TheReignMan99 is in the target demographic though.  Those games appeal most to teenagers and college students i.e. people who have the free time to actually be good at the games.  Once you are an adult and have responsibility, you can't spend enough time playing CoD to stand a chance against the teenagers that spend all day playing it.

Like music, video games tend to be generational.  My peak gaming years was probably 1998 through 2006.  People who grew up with '80s and early '90s video games typically didn't like that era.  I guess I am similar with disliking the current AAA games.

The bright spot in today's gaming, especially on PC, is indie games.  This is a great time for them so there is plenty out there to play if you don't like the CoD/Battlefield empire.



I can see how multiplayer shooters are bland and repetitive, but I massively prefer them to virtual tabletop games such as Clash of Clans and League of Legends and scrollers such as Flappy Bird; the latter games remind me of what I could play online in the 2000s on a computer when Flash was big and I think it's a waste of computer resources when our phones are much more capable than those computers.


What I like in a video game, which right now is GTA V, is how I am in my own world and how I can control my own character and acquire my own possessions and features for them. If you suck at art, you can design your own character through a menu-based interface; if you can't find the clothes you want, if you can't gain or lose weight or if you want certain physical features but can't have them, or if your country has strict laws on how you can express yourself, you can dress how you want in-game. I also like the element of skill as well, where it is much easier to be good at something amazing that few are good at that you can't do in real life for legal, practical and physical reasons. Anyone can do spreadsheets for a living, but it's not as exciting, rewarding or as demanding as being able to drive a virtual car at 100 mph without crashing or shoot up enemy players with a high degree of skill.


I want more Saints Row 2 clones or even a remaster of that game. GTA V came close, but there are a few things missing from that game that annoy me compared with Saints Row 2; plus, you can only have your own character if you have an internet connection for GTA V.

One of my favourite things about 7th/8th Gen is how massive and detailed the words get to be thanks to the new hardware.

Like in Assassin's Creed 2, it simply took my breath away to see how huge Midieval Rome was. The world was so incredibly rich and detailed, so many people, so many items, so many nooks and crannies and hidden spots, the map was massive. It felt like it would take a life time to explore everything. The city was just beautiful. Even my mom who almost never played video games up to that point in 2009 (nowadays she plays a lot of phone games) thought it was mesmerizing, and liked watching me play it (but then I couldn't go to the Courtesans LOL).

That's why I'm loving Zelda so far. It's much the same. The last Zelda was on 6th Gen hardware on the Wii, so it's been a massive jump. HUGE map and so much interactivity. My favourite thing about the Switch is because, like Chris, I don't have as much time to play video games as I used to, but the Switch is portable so I can take it anywhere. The kids can watch TV and I can still play on my Switch.  8)

I liked GTA5 too. Huge map! Huge, Jerry! A lot to explore. The thing is though, I was never a huge of shooting games, I know it's not an FPS but it still has shooting in it. I usually just watch my brother play. ;D

Call of Duty wouldn't still be so popular if it weren't for people like TheReignMan99 who like the games.  Nothing wrong with that.  I just don't like multiplayer shooters these days.  I was into Counter-Strike back in the day and played some of the early, pre-CoD 4 installments as well as Battlefield 1 and 2 and Unreal Tournament back in the '00s.  I really can't get into those kind of games these days.  TheReignMan99 is in the target demographic though.  Those games appeal most to teenagers and college students i.e. people who have the free time to actually be good at the games.  Once you are an adult and have responsibility, you can't spend enough time playing CoD to stand a chance against the teenagers that spend all day playing it.

Like music, video games tend to be generational.  My peak gaming years was probably 1998 through 2006.  People who grew up with '80s and early '90s video games typically didn't like that era.  I guess I am similar with disliking the current AAA games.

The bright spot in today's gaming, especially on PC, is indie games.  This is a great time for them so there is plenty out there to play if you don't like the CoD/Battlefield empire.

Oh I haven't played a Call of Duty game since 2010's Call of Duty: Black Ops. So....yeah, I'm not even sure if I'm getting Call of Duty: World War II. Right now, the two biggest games that I'm looking to buying is Sonic Mania (coming out August 15th) and Star Wars Battlefront II (coming out November 17th).

Also, there was NO Battlefield 1 in the 2000s...you're probably referring to 2002's Battlefield 1942. Battlefield 1 just came out last year on October 21, 2016.

Oh I haven't played a Call of Duty game since 2010's Call of Duty: Black Ops. So....yeah, I'm not even sure if I'm getting Call of Duty: World War II. Right now, the two biggest games that I'm looking to buying is Sonic Mania (coming out August 15th) and Star Wars Battlefront II (coming out November 17th).

Also, there was NO Battlefield 1 in the 2000s...you're probably referring to 2002's Battlefield 1942. Battlefield 1 just came out last year on October 21, 2016.


Yeah I was thinking Battlefield 1942.

I am looking forward to Sonic Mania myself.  I'm undecided on Battlefront II but it definitely looks interesting as well.

One of my favourite things about 7th/8th Gen is how massive and detailed the words get to be thanks to the new hardware.

Like in Assassin's Creed 2, it simply took my breath away to see how huge Midieval Rome was. The world was so incredibly rich and detailed, so many people, so many items, so many nooks and crannies and hidden spots, the map was massive. It felt like it would take a life time to explore everything. The city was just beautiful. Even my mom who almost never played video games up to that point in 2009 (nowadays she plays a lot of phone games) thought it was mesmerizing, and liked watching me play it (but then I couldn't go to the Courtesans LOL).

That's why I'm loving Zelda so far. It's much the same. The last Zelda was on 6th Gen hardware on the Wii, so it's been a massive jump. HUGE map and so much interactivity. My favourite thing about the Switch is because, like Chris, I don't have as much time to play video games as I used to, but the Switch is portable so I can take it anywhere. The kids can watch TV and I can still play on my Switch.  8)

I liked GTA5 too. Huge map! Huge, Jerry! A lot to explore. The thing is though, I was never a huge of shooting games, I know it's not an FPS but it still has shooting in it. I usually just watch my brother play. ;D



Big area to explore San Andreas, but you can't access building interiors such as the airport in freemode both offline and online  >:(

Compare this with Saints Row 2 when you can do exactly just that:


https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/saintsrow/images/d/dc/Wardill_Airport_building_-_branded.jpg


(Sorry for blurry picture)


Still, GTA V is a step up from most games because of how generous it is with unlocks (the only thing you have to pay for in-game is in-game currency), and the customisation for your character and your vehicle is comparatively immense versus many other games of its decade.


I'm not a big fan of consoles because of planned obsolescence. You can't play old games on them like Saints Row 2. I was disappointed to not be able to play PS2 games on my PS3.

I am looking forward to Sonic Mania myself.  I'm undecided on Battlefront II but it definitely looks interesting as well.

I'm hyped for both :D 8).

I'm not a big fan of consoles because of planned obsolescence. You can't play old games on them like Saints Row 2. I was disappointed to not be able to play PS2 games on my PS3.

Get an Xbox One....you can play Xbox 360 games (some of them and with more to come) and later this year you can play original Xbox games ;).

Get an Xbox One....you can play Xbox 360 games (some of them and with more to come) and later this year you can play original Xbox games ;) .



I'm fine since I have a decked out gaming PC already (need it for my course to make games and other physical simulations), but even then, that game still isn't on Xbox One I believe. The Xbox has somewhat better backwards compatibility, but this is a bit disappointing.


https://marketplace.xbox.com/en-GB/Product/Saints-Row-2/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802545107fc

It's a shame also since Saints Row 2 runs much better on console than on PC, i.e. no crashing.

Plus, some games in my experience are PlayStation exclusives, most obviously the Gran Turismo ones, but I'm looking more at the fighting games I've seen people play.

I'm waiting to see if Crackdown 3 will be on PC; I've heard it'll only be on the Xbox One X though. I have the original Crackdown, an Xbox 360 exclusive.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-06-19-clearing-up-confusion-surrounding-crackdown-3-destruction


Crackdown 3 will resemble the original Crackdown in terms of gameplay, but they say it'll have more narrative. I hope they deliver on the narrative because I felt like that Crackdown 1 was lacking in it. To be fair, I can get too distracted from the game or otherwise discouraged with a strong or complex narrative at times, such as with GTA IV and EVE: Online, the former, whose narrative I found confusing and was part of the reason why I found the game boring, and the latter, whose gameplay in my opinion is slightly more exciting than a tabletop game like League of Legends because it's set in space and hence you have a truly 3D environment as opposed to the 2.5D environment you get in tabletop games, but its narrative is way more interesting.

I'm fine since I have a decked out gaming PC already (need it for my course to make games and other physical simulations), but even then, that game still isn't on Xbox One I believe. The Xbox has somewhat better backwards compatibility, but this is a bit disappointing.


https://marketplace.xbox.com/en-GB/Product/Saints-Row-2/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802545107fc

It's a shame also since Saints Row 2 runs much better on console than on PC, i.e. no crashing.

Plus, some games in my experience are PlayStation exclusives, most obviously the Gran Turismo ones, but I'm looking more at the fighting games I've seen people play.

I'm waiting to see if Crackdown 3 will be on PC; I've heard it'll only be on the Xbox One X though. I have the original Crackdown, an Xbox 360 exclusive.



http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-06-19-clearing-up-confusion-surrounding-crackdown-3-destruction


Crackdown 3 will resemble the original Crackdown in terms of gameplay, but they say it'll have more narrative. I hope they deliver on the narrative because I felt like that Crackdown 1 was lacking in it. To be fair, I can get too distracted from the game or otherwise discouraged with a strong or complex narrative at times, such as with GTA IV and EVE: Online, the former, whose narrative I found confusing and was part of the reason why I found the game boring, and the latter, whose gameplay in my opinion is slightly more exciting than a tabletop game like League of Legends because it's set in space and hence you have a truly 3D environment as opposed to the 2.5D environment you get in tabletop games, but its narrative is way more interesting.

Well, I was half-joking. However, I understand why you prefer PC over consoles.

That's why some people (of all backgrounds) feel threatened by things such as interracial marriage, integration, mass immigration, multiculturalism, etc.


I think those people are either racial supremacists or extremely insensitive people. What kind of person (aside from those who are neo-Nazis) gets threatened by integration?

I think those people are either racial supremacists or extremely insensitive people. What kind of person (aside from those who are neo-Nazis) gets threatened by integration?

Well, some of those people are racial supremacists...some aren't.

Not every person who opposes integration are Neo-Nazis. I have seen comments and video from some Black people who don't want White people moving into the inner city because they don't like White people or they are fearful of gentrification. However, there are other people of other backgrounds who are also fearful of integration. However, the majority of people in most or every background is not opposed to integration.

When could these SJW vs. Alt right wars stop? Two extremes don't make a right for goodness sakes.

I wish both groups were gone. Period.

When could these SJW vs. Alt right wars stop? Two extremes don't make a right for goodness sakes.

I wish both groups were gone. Period.

Most likely never...unfortunately.

Most likely never...unfortunately.


Only "never" if Trump somehow manages to stay in power for eternity. As this administration comes to a close, we should see the political tensions start to ease somewhat to the point where some left-wing activists and right-wing groups can actually shake hands. The Alt Right will fizzle out as their blind faith in Trump Admin proves to be disillusionment and as for the SJWs, well, they'll mature at some point.

Only "never" if Trump somehow manages to stay in power for eternity. As this administration comes to a close, we should see the political tensions start to ease somewhat to the point where some left-wing activists and right-wing groups can actually shake hands. The Alt Right will fizzle out as their blind faith in Trump Admin proves to be disillusionment and as for the SJWs, well, they'll mature at some point.


This is true.  When Trump leaves office, most of the country with breathe a huge sigh of relief and that could be the perfect opportunity to unite the country and put the extreme polarization of the past decade to rest.  Despite the SJW hysteria surrounding him, I think VP Pence has the potential to be able to do this in the event Trump is impeached.  Hopefully he seizes the moment and governs from the center-right and not the far right.  If Trump lasts to 2020, hopefully we get a centrist Democrat and not somebody far left.

This is true.  When Trump leaves office, most of the country with breathe a huge sigh of relief and that could be the perfect opportunity to unite the country and put the extreme polarization of the past decade to rest.  Despite the SJW hysteria surrounding him, I think VP Pence has the potential to be able to do this in the event Trump is impeached.  Hopefully he seizes the moment and governs from the center-right and not the far right.  If Trump lasts to 2020, hopefully we get a centrist Democrat and not somebody far left.

Even though, I'm not far left....I'm kind of tired of centrist Democrats.

2017 I think is more of a stormy year than 2016 in some ways and I don't see that changing any time soon. Who knows if 2020 will be cheerful, we can't predict that. I'd love it to be, but that's beside the point. You know all this has to come to a head at some point, but that may very well spill over into the 2020's as well.
Yeah, that's I have been thinking. After seeing that 2017 is dfferent than the rest of the decade topic, i don'think that's true at all because we wont be far from 2016 for a few more years, and that the tensions were already there long before Trump ran for the WH.


Yeah it's time to go back to a lighter pop culture.  With what is going on in the country right now, all this dystopian fiction is hitting too close to home.  The Walking Dead was good when it started but it's lasted past its expiration.  Time for it to go.

I would say 2017 culture is mostly still products of the Obama era, since most artists/producers/studios had been preparing current music, tv shows, and movies since before Trump took office.  In 2018, we'll probably start seeing Trump's impact on pop culture a lot more.

Culture was lighter in the early '10s than the mid '10s.  I do really hope we end the decade on a lighter note.



Yeah, I keep seeing posts on how people are getting annoyed by these super hero movies as well, but on the shooting games side, I keep seeing threads in other forums getting sick of Call Of Duty, and all of these type of games, It seems like EVERY game that comes out is this shooting game set in WW2 or in the post dystopic future, its like ENOUGH! Walking dead was on last night, and I just skipped right past it because the show is PAST it's prime, all of these type of shows tbh. Some of the networks have realized the serialized DRAMA thing created by HBO is now a meme. In late 2008 when the crash happened you had very upbeat electro pop to balance out the feeling of despair, I think to 2009's I got a feeling by the black eye peas, it was like a pick me up in a world full of uncertainty. Now we are in bad straits in the world again (maybe even worse before, while at the same time having a good economy) and there is no music to off set it really. YEs there is a few pop gems coming here and there that are upbeat, but you know what I mean.
i agree. I really hope the culture becomes lighter again soon. The dystopian fiction would have been much better had it not been overexposed, and have the right TV shows for that genre.

The dystopian fiction would have been much better had it not been overexposed, and have the right TV shows for that genre.


I agree.  I did like them at first, but they became too overdone.  I do like A Handmaid's Tale because it portrays a more right wing dystopia.  It's culturally relevant because right now things seem to be moving in a more right wing direction.  Most of the dystopias from the Hunger Games to Divergent to most of the others are left wing/communistic dystopias.  I think it started to lose its impact around the fourth Hunger Games movie.  I didn't feel it was as good as the others, despite it being a finale.

Even though, I'm not far left....I'm kind of tired of centrist Democrats.


I'm not tired of "centrists" per se, I'm tired of corporate lame-ducks.

Even though, I'm not far left....I'm kind of tired of centrist Democrats.


I think in the current environment though we need a centrist.  Our country really isn't ready for somebody far left.  Obama pushed the edge a little much for a lot of people and he was more center-left.  He was nothing like Bernie, who is far left.  In about 20-30 years, when the baby boomers start to fade into the sunset, then we might be able to move a little farther left.

I'm not tired of "centrists" per se, I'm tired of corporate lame-ducks.

Same.


I think in the current environment though we need a centrist.  Our country really isn't ready for somebody far left.  Obama pushed the edge a little much for a lot of people and he was more center-left.  He was nothing like Bernie, who is far left.  In about 20-30 years, when the baby boomers start to fade into the sunset, then we might be able to move a little farther left.

I didn't say to have someone "far left" but definitely not a freaking centrist again. Oh well, who knows.

Same.
I didn't say to have someone "far left" but definitely not a freaking centrist again. Oh well, who knows.


Somebody like an Obama on policy would be about as far left as I would go at the current time.

Somebody like an Obama on policy would be about as far left as I would go at the current time.

Huh? ??? Explain that please.

Huh? ??? Explain that please.


Somebody like Obama on policy, not Bernie Sanders.  Obama wasn't near as far left as people claimed he was.  He was center-left and I think history is going to look very kindly on his Presidency, no matter what Trump does to sabotage it.

Somebody like Obama on policy, not Bernie Sanders.  Obama wasn't near as far left as people claimed he was.  He was center-left and I think history is going to look very kindly on his Presidency, no matter what Trump does to sabotage it.

Oh OK, your assessment of Obama is correct. However, I'm still weary of a centrist Dem as a candidate for Prez in 2020.

So we'll have to wait 3 more years? ???

So we'll have to wait 3 more years? ???
Yeah,  unless the culture becomes happier again within a few months or by next year.

If mainstream positivity makes a comeback, I probably won't even notice it since I'm so used to positivity of the 2000s.

As long as that orange thug is in the White House, things won't be cheerful.  Sad thing is, he's very popular and I am worried Trump represents the direction this country is headed.

I personally don't really see the appeal of culture being "cheerful". I prefer things to be more rough around the edges which is why I don't mind the mid 2010s. I certainly do hope political tension and violence dies down, but we're doing better this year than we were last year and it really ain't that bad if you compare it to other times in history.

Anyways things will change in 2018 and 2019 will be quite different from now. This usually happens every decade where the late part of the decade brings in real change. I don't know whether the change will be cheerful or not, but there will be change no doubt. Keep your eyes open around late 2018. Mark my words.

Yeah,  unless the culture becomes happier again within a few months or by next year.


There's nothing really happy about today's culture nowadays.

There's nothing really happy about today's culture nowadays.

We won't get back happiness until the world is at peace again, which will only happen if our population gets reduced to massive proportions.

As long as that orange thug is in the White House, things won't be cheerful.  Sad thing is, he's very popular and I am worried Trump represents the direction this country is headed.


I doubt that he's popular. He's rather infamous to most people.

We won't get back happiness until the world is at peace again, which will only happen if our population gets reduced to massive proportions.

The world will never be at peace though.

As long as that orange thug is in the White House, things won't be cheerful.  Sad thing is, he's very popular and I am worried Trump represents the direction this country is headed.


This is true, and I don't think he's going away anytime soon either  :(

The world will never be at peace though.

That's true.

The world will never be at peace though.

Annoyingly, this will mean that war is justified because "it works". I don't think it's very ethical to let large scale war to continue.

Annoyingly, this will mean that war is justified because "it works". I don't think it's very ethical to let large scale war to continue.

The overwhelming majority of people don't think it's ethical to let large scale wars continue. However, it is a fact that the world will never be peaceful.

We won't get back happiness until the world is at peace again, which will only happen if our population gets reduced to massive proportions.


guns almost every day, cars running people over, you have couples arguing and either killing each other or a little child of their own, fires burning in houses and committing suicides, this is the stupid garbage I read in the news every day, nothing happy about that! ::) 

The world will never be at peace though.


You got that right Slim.

Maybe in heaven things are peaceful!  :)

Maybe in heaven things are peaceful!  :)


What if you're going to hell?

What if you're going to hell?


Oh. God bless you're heart, child!  8)  8)  8)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTH22GWBM8T8Pgcw6_lO8UG4MzcPv8yl-tYexx-7BmQbtGFDIt_8w

I doubt that he's popular. He's rather infamous to most people.


He's not really too popular, but he does have a devoted fanbase. Dems don't really at this time have any single potential candidate with such a devoted fanbase. The problem is if the Dems nominate a poor candidate in 2020, Trump may very well win reelection despite all the controversy. Obama brought together the left and center, the war hawk establishment Hillary couldn't do that. Sanders was too left wing, Hillary was too establishment. The lefties didn't really like Hillary and independents didn't either. Dems need somebody in between who can bring in left leaning people and the independents and win the presidency like Obama did in 2008 and 2012.

He's not really too popular, but he does have a devoted fanbase. Dems don't really at this time have any single potential candidate with such a devoted fanbase. The problem is if the Dems nominate a poor candidate in 2020, Trump may very well win reelection despite all the controversy. Obama brought together the left and center, the war hawk establishment Hillary couldn't do that. Sanders was too left wing, Hillary was too establishment. The lefties didn't really like Hillary and independents didn't either. Dems need somebody in between who can bring in left leaning people and the independents and win the presidency like Obama did in 2008 and 2012.
If you haven't heard of Kamala Harris, she's definitely a good contender for 2020.

If you haven't heard of Kamala Harris, she's definitely a good contender for 2020.


Yeah I posted about her before, I think she would be good.

Yeah I posted about her before, I think she would be good.
Oh yeah, she would :).  I hope she runs in 2020.

Oh yeah, she would :).  I hope she runs in 2020.


Yeah she's the direction the Dems need to go. A 3rd Hillary run on the other hand would be one of the possible recipes for disaster. Another disaster would be a Joe Biden (who turns 78 in 2020) run, I like Biden but pushing 80 at first election is just too old for that job imo. Trump is already almost too old and the last thing we need is somebody even older.

Yeah she's the direction the Dems need to go. A 3rd Hillary run on the other hand would be one of the possible recipes for disaster. Another disaster would be a Joe Biden (who turns 78 in 2020) run, I like Biden but pushing 80 at first election is just too old for that job imo. Trump is already almost too old and the last thing we need is somebody even older.

Kamala is a great choice but I feel as though she should spend more time in the Senate.

I also think Jason Kander would be a great choice. Have you or anyone else heard of him?

Oh yeah, she would :).  I hope she runs in 2020.


Don't Republicans already hate her a lot?

Don't Republicans already hate her a lot?

You betcha!. You know why:

1. She's from California
2. She's a female.
3. She's half Black and half Indian.
4. She's the female version of former President Obama (but a little more left leaning).
5. She's a Democrat.

You betcha!. You know why:

1. She's from California
2. She's a female.
3. She's half Black and half Indian.
4. She's the female version of former President Obama (but a little more left leaning).
5. She's a Democrat.


I'll be surprised if she wins. It sounds a lot like Hillary. Sky high approval ratings before, but by the time the primaries come, the hit job has done its magic and her image tanks, and suddenly she's the sign of the upcoming Armageddon  :-X

I'll be surprised if she wins. It sounds a lot like Hillary. Sky high approval ratings before, but by the time the primaries come, the hit job has done its magic and her image tanks, and suddenly she's the sign of the upcoming Armageddon  :-X

Damn it, you're right >:(. They can't do that to Jason Kander though 8).

You betcha!. You know why:

1. She's from California
2. She's a female.
3. She's half Black and half Indian.
4. She's the female version of former President Obama (but a little more left leaning).
5. She's a Democrat.


Yeah she's pretty much a right wingers worst nightmare. They especially HATE when minority women challenge them.

Yeah she's pretty much a right wingers worst nightmare. They especially HATE when minority women challenge them.

Yes sir.....you're correct.

As insane as this might seem, the Dems could have an excellent shot at victory if they roll out someone like Jesse Ventura. Americans crave anti-establishment candidates, and Jesse (though an Independent, and nutty in demeanor) has consistently demonstrated progressive/liberal views on death penalty, foreign policy, environment, labor unions, etc. He has a bit of an "anti-government" streak to him, even if he is for socialized medicine and healthcare. Was a vocal critic of the Bush Admin.
I like Kander and Gabbard. Iffy on Harris, but would vote for her against Trump

As insane as this might seem, the Dems could have an excellent shot at victory if they roll out someone like Jesse Ventura. Americans crave anti-establishment candidates, and Jesse (though an Independent, and nutty in demeanor) has consistently demonstrated progressive/liberal views on death penalty, foreign policy, environment, labor unions, etc. He has a bit of an "anti-government" streak to him, even if he is for socialized medicine and healthcare. Was a vocal critic of the Bush Admin.
I like Kander and Gabbard. Iffy on Harris, but would vote for her against Trump

No, Jesse Ventura is old, a complete wacko and he's not even a Democrat. No way should Democrats even consider him at all.

Why are you iffy on Kamala Harris? (just asking)

Based on the fact that I received no answers, I'm going to explain who Jason Kander is.

Jason Kander:

1. He's a member of the Democratic Party.
2. He was a member of the Missouri House of Representatives from the 44th district (serving from 2009-2013)
3. He served as the 39th Secretary of State of Missouri from 2013-2017 (under Democrat Governor Jay Nixon)
4. He was an intelligence officer in the Army National Guard, achieving the rank of Captain. He served from 2003-2011 in the War in Afghanistan.
5. He was raised in a Jewish family.
6. He ran for one of Missouri's US Senate seats in 2016 against long time Congressman Roy Blunt (Republican). He narrowly lost to Blunt receiving 46.4% of the vote to Blunt's 49.2%.
7. He's a progressive but not as left as Bernie Sanders, so he appeals to centrists and moderates.
8. He was born on May 4, 1981, he's currently 36 years old. He's young and if he were to be elected in 2020, he would become the YOUNGEST President ever. On Inauguration Day 2021 (January 20, 2021), he would be 39 years, 8 months and 16 days old.
9. If elected in 2020, he would be considered either the first Gen X president or the first Millennial president...either way that would be historic and pretty cool.


The GOP would be hard pressed to find any "dirt" on him because:

1. He's a White male
2. He's not from a "leftist state"...he was born and raised in Kansas (yes...that same Kansas). He also represented Missouri. He's a Midwesterner.
3. He's a veteran of the United States Armed Forces (United States Army)
4. He has no political baggage.
5. He's not connected to Nancy Pelosi

The only "dirt" the Republicans could use is that he's a Democrat and liberal (but that's standard) and that he has an interesting video where he showed his support for gun control by assembling an AR-15 rifle BLINDFOLDED :o.

As insane as this might seem, the Dems could have an excellent shot at victory if they roll out someone like Jesse Ventura. Americans crave anti-establishment candidates, and Jesse (though an Independent, and nutty in demeanor) has consistently demonstrated progressive/liberal views on death penalty, foreign policy, environment, labor unions, etc. He has a bit of an "anti-government" streak to him, even if he is for socialized medicine and healthcare. Was a vocal critic of the Bush Admin.
I like Kander and Gabbard. Iffy on Harris, but would vote for her against Trump


Even though I barely agree with her on anything, I think Gabbard can win and that's really all that matters. Kander sounds even better. Republicans haven't started a negative campaign on those two, and they've already built a positive reputation in most people's minds, so it's going to be difficult to start a hit job now.

I don't know anything about Ventura. :-X

I don't think anything will be cheerful unless we get some at least good news and there hasn't been much of any.

Even though I barely agree with her on anything, I think Gabbard can win and that's really all that matters. Kander sounds even better. Republicans haven't started a negative campaign on those two, and they've already built a positive reputation in most people's minds, so it's going to be difficult to start a hit job now.
I'm the same way as you.


I don't know anything about Ventura. :-X

That's a good thing. Do you want to know more about him? (I can tell you)

I'm the same way as you.
That's a good thing. Do you want to know more about him? (I can tell you)


Will he ever be relevant, Y/N? ;D That's all I need to know. :P

Will he ever be relevant, Y/N? ;D That's all I need to know. :P

Debatable, if he comes up with a new conspiracy then yes...if not then no.

No, Jesse Ventura is old, a complete wacko and he's not even a Democrat. No way should Democrats even consider him at all.

Why are you iffy on Kamala Harris? (just asking)


I'm iffy for the same reason somebody just listed above. I like that she seems to be a fresh face, but I fear the REPs will do anything to dig up dirt on her and smear her path to the WH.
Bernie wasn't a Democrat but he ran on the DEM ticket and he had every right to do so. I will not argue on Ventura appearing less than perfectly stable, at least on the surface. But the man showed decent governship qualities during his stint as Minnesota Governor, his track record is more consistent than a large bulk of Democrats (and 99.99999999% of REPs). His age is an issue, but shouldn't wholly impede his path to office. His main barrier to office should be his questionable demeanor

I'm iffy for the same reason somebody just listed above. I like that she seems to be a fresh face, but I fear the REPs will do anything to dig up dirt on her and smear her path to the WH.
OK, that's fine....I understand why you're iffy.


Bernie wasn't a Democrat but he ran on the DEM ticket and he had every right to do so. I will not argue on Ventura appearing less than perfectly stable, at least on the surface. But the man showed decent governship qualities during his stint as Minnesota Governor, his track record is more consistent than a large bulk of Democrats (and 99.99999999% of REPs). His age is an issue, but shouldn't wholly impede his path to office. His main barrier to office should be his questionable demeanor

Jesse is just too nutty and old for me. Also, even if you disregard his demeanor (and age)....he's NOT a Democrat and has never been one (or aligned himself as one). The overwhelming majority of Dems should not even consider voting for him. He would also be like the Democrat version of Trump which would not look good on the Dems.

If he wants to run for Prez as an Independent...then fine but running as a Democrat...NO WAY. That is it.

On another note, CNN webpage's front headlines appears to have shifted from covering Trump 24-7 to covering America's opioid crisis (possibly pro-War On Drugs propaganda).
The Democratic forum (DemocraticUnderground) seemed much more relaxed when I logged on yesterday, than it has been just a few weeks ago. 
Perhaps, the political/cultural atmosphere is starting to slowly change?

On another note, CNN webpage's front headlines appears to have shifted from covering Trump 24-7 to covering America's opioid crisis (possibly pro-War On Drugs propaganda).
The Democratic forum (DemocraticUnderground) seemed much more relaxed when I logged on yesterday, than it has been just a few weeks ago. 
Perhaps, the political/cultural atmosphere is starting to slowly change?

What do you mean? The political atmosphere is not changing at all and won't change for a long time.

OK, that's fine....I understand why you're iffy.
Jesse is just too nutty and old for me. Also, even if you disregard his demeanor (and age)....he's NOT a Democrat and has never been one (or aligned himself as one). The overwhelming majority of Dems should not even consider voting for him. He would also be like the Democrat version of Trump which would not look good on the Dems.

If he wants to run for Prez as an Independent...then fine but running as a Democrat...NO WAY. That is it.


I understand.
I was entertaining the idea of Jesse running for Prez, given that I know how much Americans loathe establishment candidates and Jesse would be the opposite of one. There is a substantial proportion of the DEM population who would fall for him though. On the Democratic forum that I occasionally visit, whenever he is brought up in conversation, the response is mixed to positive (although as of late, less positive than before, and perhaps with very valid reason).
If you want to settle for the "safe", secure and stable candidates ala Kander, then I understand your POV. If you want to settle for the game-changers, OTOH, I understand that too.
Whatever it takes to turn the tables on this admin

What do you mean? The political atmosphere is not changing at all and won't change for a long time.


Haven't read about terrorism in a week now.
I think the past 1-2 weeks was just letting off steam and after this summer winds down, we will start to see some noticable changes set in

I understand.
I was entertaining the idea of Jesse running for Prez, given that I know how much Americans loathe establishment candidates and Jesse would be the opposite of one. There is a substantial proportion of the DEM population who would fall for him though. On the Democratic forum that I occasionally visit, whenever he is brought up in conversation, the response is mixed to positive (although as of late, less positive than before, and perhaps with very valid reason).
If you want to settle for the "safe", secure and stable candidates ala Kander, then I understand your POV. If you want to settle for the game-changers, OTOH, I understand that too.
Whatever it takes to turn the tables on this admin

If there is a good outsider candidate who is a Democrat then I'll consider them but Jesse Ventura is just not close to being that person. Kander would be a great and safe choice but I won't rule out other any good candidates.


Haven't read about terrorism in a week now.
I think the past 1-2 weeks was just letting off steam and after this summer winds down, we will start to see some noticable changes set in

You should know by now that nothing will settle down as long as Trump is President.

Debatable, if he comes up with a new conspiracy then yes...if not then no.


Oh wait... Minnesota Governor... I think I heard of him.

Oh wait... Minnesota Governor... I think I heard of him.

Yeah, he was:

1. The Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota from 1991-1995.
2. Governor of Minnesota from 1999-2003.
3. He's an Independent.
4. He's wacky and "anti-government"
5. He was a member of the U.S. Navy Underwater Demolition Team during the Vietnam War (1969-1975)
6. He was a prossfessional wrestler from 1975-1986 taking the ring name Jesse "The Body" Ventura in the WWF (now WWE) and he was also a color commentator, and was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2004.
7. He was in the 1987 movie Predator, which starred Arnold Schwarzenegger and Carl Weathers (who played Apollo Creed in the Rocky film franchise).

Yeah, he was:

1. The Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota from 1991-1995.
2. Governor of Minnesota from 1999-2003.
3. He's an Independent.
4. He's wacky and "anti-government"
5. He was a member of the U.S. Navy Underwater Demolition Team during the Vietnam War (1969-1975)
6. He was a prossfessional wrestler from 1975-1986 taking the ring name Jesse "The Body" Ventura in the WWF (now WWE) and he was also a color commentator, and was inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame in 2004.
7. He was in the 1987 movie Predator, which starred Arnold Schwarzenegger and Carl Weathers (who played Apollo Creed in the Rocky film franchise).


Yeah, it's coming back me to now. Sorry HeyJealousy, I don't touch conspiracy theorists, it's 100% a deal breaker. The worst thing about Trump is that he's not even living in the realm of the factual, everything is a conspiracy and there are daggers in the dark everywhere for him. I don't think it would be good to follow up with someone with a similar mentality, it would just be normalizing that insane behaviour.  :-X

Yeah, it's coming back me to now. Sorry HeyJealousy, I don't touch conspiracy theorists, it's 100% a deal breaker. The worst thing about Trump is that he's not even living in the realm of the factual, everything is a conspiracy and there are daggers in the dark everywhere for him. I don't think it would be good to follow up with someone with a similar mentality, it would just be normalizing that insane behaviour.  :-X

Yeah, I totally agree.

People killing, people dying, children hurt, and you hear them crying.
Will you practice what you preach? Will you turn the other cheek?
Father, father, something, something, something, something.....

.....'cause where is the love? Where is the love??

-Some song by the Black Eyed Peas and that Fergie girl-

-Some song by the Black Eyed Peas and that Fergie girl-

Fergie is a member of the Black Eyed Peas. That song is featuring Justin Timberlake.

Fergie is a member of the Black Eyed Peas. That song is featuring Justin Timberlake.


Yes!  ;D

Yeah, it's coming back me to now. Sorry HeyJealousy, I don't touch conspiracy theorists, it's 100% a deal breaker. The worst thing about Trump is that he's not even living in the realm of the factual, everything is a conspiracy and there are daggers in the dark everywhere for him. I don't think it would be good to follow up with someone with a similar mentality, it would just be normalizing that insane behaviour.  :-X


I don't like the radical tinfoil elements of conspiracy theories, and Ventura does go too far for me on many occasions, but to me the worst part of the Trump Admin is undoubtebly him fostering the hateful, xenophobic, authoritarian elements of the modern American right. On everything from immigration to drug policy to LGBT issues. The fact that he is living in his own made-up world is also troublesome as f*ck. But questioning the official narrative is not as nutty as living in your own made-up world, it's actually saner than nodding along to everything a politician or talking head spews.

Most of the things people call conspiracies aren't conspiracies but the actual truth backed up by evidence. It's just people don't want to believe it or are being brainwashed to believe something else. Not everything of course but many things.

Most of the things people call conspiracies aren't conspiracies but the actual truth backed up by evidence. It's just people don't want to believe it or are being brainwashed to believe something else. Not everything of course but many things.


I don't like to call myself a "conspiracy theorist", or group myself with that crowd (you know, the LunaticOutpost crowd) but one of the most ignorant things an American can do (this day and age) is to blindly believe whatever the press/government/corporate elite proclaims to be the truth. Because powerful institutions, who are capable of lying and covering up, WILL lie and cover up if the need arises. There just has to be a need and a justification.

Most of the things people call conspiracies aren't conspiracies but the actual truth backed up by evidence. It's just people don't want to believe it or are being brainwashed to believe something else. Not everything of course but many things.

Huh? What "actual truth"? Explain ???


I don't like to call myself a "conspiracy theorist", or group myself with that crowd (you know, the LunaticOutpost crowd) but one of the most ignorant things an American can do (this day and age) is to blindly believe whatever the press/government/corporate elite proclaims to be the truth. Because powerful institutions, who are capable of lying and covering up, WILL lie and cover up if the need arises. There just has to be a need and a justification.

That's normal. Most people don't fully trust the federal government or politicians but a lot of those conspiracies are just purely ridiculous.

Huh? What "actual truth"? Explain ???
That's normal. Most people don't fully trust the federal government or politicians but a lot of those conspiracies are just purely ridiculous.


A great amount are very hyperbolic if not almost implausible. Doesn't mean the public shouldn't actively question the official story.
I do respect your quest for reason and sanity in today's hyperpartisan, hyperbolic world though

It's near impossible to predict how the 2020's will be like. The next five years will set the stage for how the next decade will be.

A great amount are very hyperbolic if not almost implausible. Doesn't mean the public shouldn't actively question the official story.
I do respect your quest for reason and sanity in today's hyperpartisan, hyperbolic world though

I agree and I respect your quest for reason and sanity as well.

I don't like to call myself a "conspiracy theorist", or group myself with that crowd (you know, the LunaticOutpost crowd) but one of the most ignorant things an American can do (this day and age) is to blindly believe whatever the press/government/corporate elite proclaims to be the truth. Because powerful institutions, who are capable of lying and covering up, WILL lie and cover up if the need arises. There just has to be a need and a justification.


I love my Occam's Razor (believe in the theory that requires the fewest new assumptions). It doesn't always work, no will ever be 100% right about everything. Heck, I'm not even 100% convinced that Trump collided with Russia. But to me, this kind of skepticism is much healthier than believing in what you want to believe, which is the rabbit hole most these "CNN and (((MSN))) are fake news and run by the Cultural Marxists and I only believe Breitbart" conspiracy theorists are falling into. When people can't even agree on the basic facts, and people are just believing what they want to believe, then we're running into huge problems.

I love my Occam's Razor (believe in the theory that requires the fewest new assumptions). It doesn't always work, no will ever be 100% right about everything. Heck, I'm not even 100% convinced that Trump collided with Russia. But to me, this kind of skepticism is much healthier than believing in what you want to believe, which is the rabbit hole most these "CNN and (((MSN))) are fake news and run by the Cultural Marxists and I only believe Breitbart" conspiracy theorists are falling into. When people can't even agree on the basic facts, and people are just believing what they want to believe, then we're running into huge problems.

I totally agree 100%.

I love my Occam's Razor (believe in the theory that requires the fewest new assumptions). It doesn't always work, no will ever be 100% right about everything. Heck, I'm not even 100% convinced that Trump collided with Russia. But to me, this kind of skepticism is much healthier than believing in what you want to believe, which is the rabbit hole most these "CNN and (((MSN))) are fake news and run by the Cultural Marxists and I only believe Breitbart" conspiracy theorists are falling into. When people can't even agree on the basic facts, and people are just believing what they want to believe, then we're running into huge problems.


I never said the MSM was run by "cultural Marxists" and I puke at the thought of Breitbart being considered a legitimate news source.

As much fun as it would be to watch Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump rip each other apart, there is a zero percent chance that Ventura could ever be elected President. Doesn't he think that missiles hit the World Trade Center instead of planes or something? Yeah, he'd probably lose every state against Trump except for New York and California.

But I did love him as announcer during his WWF days though. Ventura and Gorilla Monsoon were the bomb when I was like 4.

I never said the MSM was run by "cultural Marxists" and I puke at the thought of Breitbart being considered a legitimate news source.


I wasn't accusing of you that! I apologize if it read that way.  :-\\ It was an example of the type of ideologies that base philosophy can invite. I'm deeply skeptical people like Jill Stein too for their brand of conspiracies too. Not all conspiracy theories are wrong. They can raise important questions, but it's important to remember "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A lot of people believe in crazy things because it makes the world feel more orderly, and in accordance with their own views. They provide an explanation for the inexplicable, so they just latch on to any crazy explanation they can find. This is not a healthy brand of skepticism imo.

You should be even MORE skeptical of conspiracy theories that are aligned with your own interests, if anything. Confirmation bias is helluva drug.

As much fun as it would be to watch Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump rip each other apart, there is a zero percent chance that Ventura could ever be elected President. Doesn't he think that missiles hit the World Trade Center instead of planes or something? Yeah, he'd probably lose every state against Trump except for New York and California.

But I did love him as announcer during his WWF days though. Ventura and Gorilla Monsoon were the bomb when I was like 4.

Hey, what are you trying to say? >:( >:( >:(

Hey, what are you trying to say? >:( >:( >:(


That New York and California would vote against Trump if the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey, and he's been dead for 40 years. Just like how Oklahoma and Alabama would vote for Trump even if the Democratic nominee was Jesus himself.

That New York and California would vote against Trump if the Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey, and he's been dead for 40 years. Just like how Oklahoma and Alabama would vote for Trump even if the Democratic nominee was Jesus himself.

NY and CA aren't even the most liberal states. Massachusetts and Hawaii are the most liberal states. Also, if there was a Presidential election between Trump vs Ventura then that would be the election with one of the lowest turnouts ever (lower than the 1996 election).

Are you forgetting that in both 1972 and 1984, the incumbent Republican president won reelection in huge landslides against "super liberal" and considered wacky Democratic candidates and guess what? Neither CA or NY voted for the Democratic candidate. In 1972, MA went blue.

NY and CA aren't even the most liberal states. Massachusetts and Hawaii are the most liberal states. Also, if there was a Presidential election between Trump vs Ventura then that would be the election with one of the lowest turnouts ever (lower than the 1996 election).

Are you forgetting that in both 1972 and 1984, the incumbent Republican president won reelection in huge landslides against "super liberal" and considered wacky Democratic candidates and guess what? Neither CA or NY voted for the Democratic candidate. In 1972, MA went blue.


It was a joke, dude. :P

It was a joke, dude. :P

Well, mach!ne_he@d didn't say that he was joking and also, if he was then...oh well, I didn't say anything bad.

NY and CA aren't even the most liberal states. Massachusetts and Hawaii are the most liberal states. Also, if there was a Presidential election between Trump vs Ventura then that would be the election with one of the lowest turnouts ever (lower than the 1996 election).

Are you forgetting that in both 1972 and 1984, the incumbent Republican president won reelection in huge landslides against "super liberal" and considered wacky Democratic candidates and guess what? Neither CA or NY voted for the Democratic candidate. In 1972, MA went blue.


You're correct that New York and California aren't the most liberal U.S. states, but I do believe they are the most Democratic. Those two things don't necessarily mean the same thing. California and New York both have such large minority populations today that, against a nominee like Trump who is toxic among minorities, it would be almost impossible for a Democrat to lose either New York or California. Both states were much less diverse back during the '70s, and Republicans did better overall with Hispanic voters than they do now, so it was still feasible that the GOP could win either of those states if they had a big enough landslide, like 1972 or 1984 for example.

Here's another way to look at it. Hillary Clinton won New York by 25% and California by 30% of the vote, even though she only won the popular vote by 3%. Unless a Republican were to win the election by around 20% of the popular vote, it would be nearly impossible for them to win either New York or California.

You're correct that New York and California aren't the most liberal U.S. states, but I do believe they are the most Democratic. Those two things don't necessarily mean the same thing. California and New York both have such large minority populations today that, against a nominee like Trump who is toxic among minorities, it would be almost impossible for a Democrat to lose either New York or California. Both states were much less diverse back during the '70s, and Republicans did better overall with Hispanic voters than they do now, so it was still feasible that the GOP could win either of those states if they had a big enough landslide, like 1972 or 1984 for example.
NY and CA aren't even the most Democratic states (http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/strongest-democratic-party-states-in-the-u-s.html). That's a stereotype my man :-X.


Here's another way to look at it. Hillary Clinton won New York by 25% and California by 30% of the vote, even though she only won the popular vote by 3%. Unless a Republican were to win the election by around 20% of the popular vote, it would be nearly impossible for them to win either New York or California.

What's makes you think Jesse Ventura would win NY or CA if he runs as a Dem (which is never going to happen but just theoretically)? ???

Most liberals don't like him and certainly most Dems don't. Like I said that election would have one of the lowest turns out ever.

What's makes you think Jesse Ventura would win NY or CA if he runs as a Dem (which is never going to happen but just theoretically)? ???

Most liberals don't like him and certainly most Dems don't. Like I said that election would have one of the lowest turns out ever.


Well, it would depend on who he was running against. If Jesse Ventura were to run against Donald Trump, he would, at the absolute minimum, win New York, California, Massachusetts, Vermont, and probably Maryland. I know it's hard to fathom that people would vote for somebody like him, but I believe that those states have enough people that detest Trump so much, that they would.

On the flip side, the states that would most likely vote Republican no matter how terrible the nominee was are Oklahoma, Alabama, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and possibly the Dakotas.

Well, it would depend on who he was running against. If Jesse Ventura were to run against Donald Trump, he would, at the absolute minimum, win New York, California, Massachusetts, Vermont, and probably Maryland. I know it's hard to fathom that people would vote for somebody like him, but I believe that those states have enough people that detest Trump so much, that they would.
Maybe, you're right but the turnout would be extremely low...no doubt about it. That election would probably see a third party candidate receive the most votes EVER (way more than even Ross Perot in 1992).


On the flip side, the states that would most likely vote Republican no matter how terrible the nominee was are Oklahoma, Alabama, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and possibly the Dakotas.

Also, West Virginia.

I'll just repost this:


Based on the fact that I received no answers, I'm going to explain who Jason Kander is.

Jason Kander:

1. He's a member of the Democratic Party.
2. He was a member of the Missouri House of Representatives from the 44th district (serving from 2009-2013)
3. He served as the 39th Secretary of State of Missouri from 2013-2017 (under Democrat Governor Jay Nixon)
4. He was an intelligence officer in the Army National Guard, achieving the rank of Captain. He served from 2003-2011 in the War in Afghanistan.
5. He was raised in a Jewish family.
6. He ran for one of Missouri's US Senate seats in 2016 against long time Congressman Roy Blunt (Republican). He narrowly lost to Blunt receiving 46.4% of the vote to Blunt's 49.2%.
7. He's a progressive but not as left as Bernie Sanders, so he appeals to centrists and moderates.
8. He was born on May 4, 1981, he's currently 36 years old. He's young and if he were to be elected in 2020, he would become the YOUNGEST President ever. On Inauguration Day 2021 (January 20, 2021), he would be 39 years, 8 months and 16 days old.
9. If elected in 2020, he would be considered either the first Gen X president or the first Millennial president...either way that would be historic and pretty cool.


The GOP would be hard pressed to find any "dirt" on him because:

1. He's a White male
2. He's not from a "leftist state"...he was born and raised in Kansas (yes...that same Kansas). He also represented Missouri. He's a Midwesterner.
3. He's a veteran of the United States Armed Forces (United States Army)
4. He has no political baggage.
5. He's not connected to Nancy Pelosi

The only "dirt" the Republicans could use is that he's a Democrat and liberal (but that's standard) and that he has an interesting video where he showed his support for gun control by assembling an AR-15 rifle BLINDFOLDED :o.

NY and CA aren't even the most Democratic states (http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/strongest-democratic-party-states-in-the-u-s.html). That's a stereotype my man :-X.
I agree. What most people don't know is that CA and NY are actually mixed with both political party and views. Regarding CA, the reason some folks believe that this place is liberial and Democratic is honestly because they only look at LA and SF while overlooking the rest of the state. I even know some people who are Republican and conservative.

I agree. What most people don't know is that CA and NY are actually mixed with both political party and views. Regarding CA, the reason some folks believe that this place is liberial and Democratic is honestly because they only look at LA and SF while overlooking the rest of the state. I even know some people who are Republican and conservative.

Yeah exactly. For NY, they primarily look at NYC but a lot of the rest of the state (outside of other major cities in the state) are GOP controlled.

It's near impossible to predict how the 2020's will be like. The next five years will set the stage for how the next decade will be.

Yes but it's fun to predict and see if you got anything right in the future. I bet many of these predictions will look ridiculous. It's very difficult for humans to guess the future and be accurate about it.

Yeah exactly. For NY, they primarily look at NYC but a lot of the rest of the state (outside of other major cities in the state) are GOP controlled.


Rural Upstate NY has Appalachian and even Midwestern elements (out towards Buffalo). Not exactly the kinda place where you'd go to preach progressive ideals.

I don't like to call myself a "conspiracy theorist", or group myself with that crowd (you know, the LunaticOutpost crowd) but one of the most ignorant things an American can do (this day and age) is to blindly believe whatever the press/government/corporate elite proclaims to be the truth. Because powerful institutions, who are capable of lying and covering up, WILL lie and cover up if the need arises. There just has to be a need and a justification.

Most of the stuff isn't even conspiracies and can be backed up by evidence, especially in American politics. I agree, blindly trusting what the government tells you prevents you from being a free thinker and is not a smart thing to do.

It's near impossible to predict how the 2020's will be like. The next five years will set the stage for how the next decade will be.


We'll just have to wait and see.

As much fun as it would be to watch Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump rip each other apart, there is a zero percent chance that Ventura could ever be elected President. Doesn't he think that missiles hit the World Trade Center instead of planes or something? Yeah, he'd probably lose every state against Trump except for New York and California.

But I did love him as announcer during his WWF days though. Ventura and Gorilla Monsoon were the bomb when I was like 4.


and don't forget Bobby Heenan.

Wow this thread aged so terribly. ;D

Wow this thread aged so terribly. ;D


Wow, guess he has to rename the year to 2021 now.

Lol I'm the only one in this thread positive about 2017. At least I appreciated it as it was happening. Now you all don't get that chance ;D

Although, funnily enough, I have a negative view of it in retrospect. 2016/2017 are the least likeable years of the 2010s in my opinion. 2018/2019 were a massive improvement.

Wow, guess he has to rename the year to 2021 now.
Not so fast! We're only two months in. The Coronavirus may be scaring people, but it will eventually pass through like the Swine Flu and Ebola.

Plus, we have the opportunity to change the election outcome. It doesn't have to be a repeat of 2016.

Not so fast! We're only two months in. The Coronavirus may be scaring people, but it will eventually pass through like the Swine Flu and Ebola.

Plus, we have the opportunity to change the election outcome. It doesn't have to be a repeat of 2016.

We're actually 3 months in.

Anyways, nah bro, coronavirus is way worse than the Swine Flu or Ebola. Also, the disastrous response by the Trump administration only makes things worse. At least, the Obama administration handled Swine Flu and Ebola decently.

Hopefully though, we can vote out Trump in November!

The corona virus isn't any worse than the regular flu. It's just the media hyping it up. Very few people died from it. I'm sure the swine flu was even worse.

This thread is funny because we are in the same era as we were in 2017 for the most part. Same as 2016. Things are only starting to change again right now. Back then I thought we would be in a totally different culture in 2020 but the culture is only starting to slowly change now.

The corona virus isn't any worse than the regular flu. It's just the media hyping it up. Very few people died from it. I'm sure the swine flu was even worse.

This statement complete IGNORANCE. Wow.

I will lock this thread to stop the thread spread of such ignorance.