Yeah, that was the joke, expecting to go retire on a nice piece of land but not knowing what's around the corner

I thought so. It was actually around the curtains.

I'm not sure most indie games count. They aren't exactly resource intensive, y'know.

Are Destiny, Halo MCC, Halo 5 (though Halo 5 is structured so the resolution drops rather than the frame rate when things are too intensive for the system, but I've never noticed the shift so I don't know how often that happens), Black Ops 3, and Battlefront indie games? I just named recent shooters that I know of because it would take too long to list all of the games.

Again, you make it out to be a bigger deal than it is with the resolution variations in Halo and Blops 3. Call of Duty has been 1080p 60fps since at least Ghosts.I have never once seen the frame rates or resolution dip at all in either. Don't pretend like frame rate dips aren't a thing on PC, either. They're actually way more common from what I've seen. Arkham Knight in particular ran at a buttery smooth 0fps on PC. I thought they said pre-release that Destiny was going to be 1080p 60fps on both, and Battlefront is so pretty that I just assumed, but you are right there.
Here's a list some guy made of PS4 games nearly two years ago (keep in mind that this doesn't include Xbox One games at all, and it's almost two years old):
Battlefield 4
COD: AW
COD: Ghosts
Diablo 3
MGSV GZ
Metro 2033
Metro Last Light
Wolfenstein TNO
Outlast
Shadow Warrior
Sniper Elite 3
TLOU Remastered
Tomb Raider Definitive Edition
Trials Fusion
Trine 2
Warframe
War Thunder

I'm making a big deal out of resolution because of your claim that 1080/60 is standard. It just isn't. Don't read too far into it. I'm just refuting your claim. Call of Duty is consistently 60fps on consoles, though they typically aren't high res. It's what's expected. Black Ops 3 dropped the ball. Frame drops are only common if you go above what your hardware is capable of. I don't expect 1080/60 out of a low budget PC, just as I don't expect it from a console.
>kek arkham knight :^)
>that'll show those PC players
PC gets its fair share of shitty games. I've never said anything otherwise. Don't try to get all defensive because I've proven you wrong.

Check the reply to this for all those games. I have to split it due to going over the line break limit.

1080/60 is not common on consoles, though it is more common on PS4 than XBone. That's just how it is. It's much better for Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo to sell affordable hardware than it is for them to go balls to the wall on a box that'll get outdated in a couple months. What I don't get is why you're so defensive over this. All that I've posted is facts. Does that fact that PC is better hinder your enjoyment of these games or something? Just play them. I don't care what your preference is. If anyone has ever paid even the tiniest iota of attention to any of my posts on these sort of things, they'd know that I have nothing against consoles. Why would I have some many of them if I did?

The content makes it seem like 1080p 60fps is unheard of on consoles, which isn't true. You act like I'm actually genuinely upset; I literally couldn't give less of a fuck about any of this. I'm not defensive, I'm making an easy to understand point. I didn't even look anything up before posting, why would I get defensive? Did you think you masterfully convinced me to abandon my deeply held views? I made an offhand and unresearched comment, then copy-pasted a list from playstation forums. I don't care that much.
About the exceeding your hardware part: that's exactly why frame rate drops are more common on PC, you can customize the settings while console games are already optimized.

>Only facts
>PC is better
>Black Ops 3 dropped the ball
Both of those are completely subjective. PC can be better because they can be as high quality as the money you're willing to spend. Consoles are essentially just PC's designed for video games almost exclusively: if you spend more, you'll get something better. Less, you'll get something worse.
Anyway, "better" is an assessment of the quality of the experience. I'd take Gears alone (my second favorite Xbox One exclusive franchise) over the entirety of any other platforms' exclusives, so for me, Xbox is "better." Some people might prioritize Bad Rats (picked that example because it's generally regarded as a bad game) over every other game out there, so for them a low-end PC can trump or equal anything else out there.

It generally is. It's been like that since gen 5. Before that, 60fps was bog standard on consoles. Gen 5 started the trend of 30fps (or lower, like Ocarina of Time). Only now are console devs realizing that people don't care as much about about resolution and flashy effects. They see that we care about smooth gameplay. While I'm not a fan of most CoD games, I've always given them their due respect for always targeting 60 fps, even at the cost of resolution.

>PC is better
Yes. Ignore exclusives. Leave out all of the first party Nintendo games. Leave out the thousands of PC exclusives. Leave out the XBone and PS4 exclusives. The PC will come out on top every time. A budget PC of 5 years ago will match or exceed a current gen console. Frame rate and resolution aren't the only factors to consider. There's load times, visual quality, etc.

>Black Ops 3 dropped the ball
>not fact
Come on, really? Even I expected better.

I have never once seen a frame rate drop in Blops 3. The game has amongst the worst servers I've ever seen in a AAA title aside from GTA online, but frame rate is not one of it's issues. What do you define as a budget PC? Are you saying a PC that was $400 5 years ago can equal or exceed current gen consoles? Because I doubt it.

>$400 PC
More like $600. That's budget to me. Though I suppose if you bought your hardware on sale and got good deals, I don't see why not. It isn't that hard to shave $200 off the cost of your PC around Black Friday or Cyber Monday.

A $350 PC from last year will totally do it though. Just check out the Potato Masher.

So $250-$300 more than consoles is budget? $350 is equal to PS4, and that PC doesn't come with $60 controllers, an OS, or an HDMI cable like a PS4 does. Also, according to some of the comments, this may not work as advertised, and some of it's parts aren't being sold anymore.

You forget that the PS4 released at $400, and the XBone released at $500. So, hardware that cost $600 5 years ago would be quite a bit cheaper by the time the consoles released.

No one pays for Windows. That's an unnecessary ~$100 cost. I don't know about you, but I've got keyboards, mice, controllers, and HDMI cables for days. I play games. This is my hobby. Someone else that plays on PC will likely already have most of this on hand too.

The parts aren't available because this was built with parts that were already discontinued or were soon going to be discontinued to begin with. The fact that it's a year old doesn't help that.

Yeah, released at, but isn't now. Also, your forgetting that $150 of that Xbone cost came from the kinect, which is an accessory that doesn't come with that PC so it's unfair to compare the costs that way.
Are you suggesting they simply pirate Windows? Because I can get anything for free if I steal it, not a fair price comparison.
I do not have any extra keyboards or mice around, and you can't exactly just assume that people will. I have controllers only because I have consoles, but if this is meant to replace consoles, than why would you have a console in addition?
If the parts were discontinued, it could contribute to the low price. So, it being inaccessible now and possibly only being that cheap at the time because of extraneous factors means that that cost is irrelevant to most current consumers who did not acquire it at the time.

The Kinect is/was mandatory though. The cost has to be included. You didn't have a choice.

Yes. Pirate Windows. Microsoft doesn't really care. Just don't go trying to run a business on pirated copies. They certainly care then. Or just install a Linux distro. There's roughly 1500 games available right now.

If you don't, a cheapo Logitech bundle will do just fine. Expensive keyboards and mice are not a requirement, and you'll do fine without them. I played on a ball mouse and a membrane keyboard until a few years ago, and I still keep them around for backup. And yes, replace your existing console. It isn't something for someone to just go into blindly. The assumption is that they want to switch from console to PC. Though I don't know why you would. The best solution is to use both.

The thing is that newer, better hardware is now available at the same price. Why would you want that old stuff? It's just an example of what was possible a year ago.

Was mandatory. It's not anymore. Also, it gives you voice command functionality, the ability to scan QR codes, automatic sign in, and other features, so it's not like it's deadweight loss. Why would you buy something else approximately equal to a console for the same price? That just seems pointless, because you can't resell a console for it's original price. It seems most PC users say that under $600, you're better off buying a console in general.

>Battlefield 4
900p 60fps

>Advanced Warfare
Hey, you got one! The XBone version isn't true 1080p though.

>Ghosts
Small framedrops on PS4, fine otherwise. XBone is consistent 720/60

>Diablo 3
You got another, though this isn't a demanding game. I mean, the PC requirements are roughly equivalent to what I had 8-10 years ago. There's also slight framedrops on XBone.

>MGS V
You got one more. Good job.

>Metro 2033 & Last Light
This is also correct. XBone is not 1080p. And keep in mind that this is a last gen game.

>Wolfenstein
Based id does it again.

>Outlast
It looks good overall, but is not a demanding game in reality. I maxed it with a budget PC 3 years ago.
>Shadow Warrior
Heavy action drops the framerate into the 40s. Also 900p on XBone.

I like how you keep saying "you got one" every single time, being passive aggressive as shit, then act like I'm mad. So what your saying is that almost all of the are true, but you're finding a way to nitpick by saying "not demanding" or "last gen."(That's especially considering Tomb Raider was developed with next gen in mind). Occasional drops do not make the game any less 1080p 60fps, otherwise my getting dropped from games in Blops 3 would mean that game has no multiplayer. The Xbox One versions are irrelevant anyway: this was a list made about PS4 games. I didn't even make the list, so any inaccuracies are not my issue.

Yeah. It does kinda sound like that. Oops.

Well we are talking about consoles in general. I thought I'd add in both. It also helps highlight just how much better the PS4 versions are too. Last gen is totally a reason though. Those games were originally released some time ago. And a game being less resource intensive will make it run at a higher and more consistent framerate. Outlast runs on potatoes. Trine 2 runs on potatoes. I know because I've done it.

Outlast could make me shit a whole potato without digesting it. Fuck Chris Walker. Last gen would normally apply, but Tomb Raider wasn't like TLOU where it was built originally for previous gen and then ported to next gen (actually, the TLOUR is still pretty intensive). It was designed for what was then next gen consoles as well as the previous gen.

Like I said, Outlast looks good, but in reality, it isn't a demanding game. The texture size is so-so, and a lot of them are hidden in darkness anyway. There's not really anything with extremely high poly counts, and there's never really too much going on on-screen to begin with. I'd be surprised if it didn't run at 1080/60, even on XBone. Now, had you said you would shit a potato because of the scariness, I would believe you. It spooped me more than once.

Tomb Raider is the same 3 year old game updated to have a bit more parity with the PC version. In my opinion, it should have been PC exclusive at first, completely skipping the X360 and PS3 and being released later on PS4/XBone. The framerate was eh and the visuals were muddy on PS3. I didn't really enjoy it.

Shitting a potato because of the scariness is what I meant.

Ok, good. I just wasn't sure, what with the way this conversation had gone and all.

Did you think I shit entire potatoes in my pants because of decent graphics or something? We were talking about a horror game, and I specifically called out one of the antagonists. I wasn't cursing him for his exceptional optimization skills, but because he's a douchebag who calls me a pig then tears my head off.

Yeah. People are amazed by graphics all the time. And I completely forgot that was his name.

It's been a while.

>Sniper Elite 3
Again, action drops the framerate into the 40s, with the XBone getting the shittier end of the stick.

>TLOU
"Enhanced" port of last gen game.

>Tomb Raider Definitive
Last gen game.

>Trials Fusion
You got it. 900p on XBone.

>Trine 2
Runs at 1080/60 on everything except the moldiest of potatoes. So what?

>Warframe
Another with drops into the 40s. I imagine the XBone is worse.

>War Thunder
Locked at 30 fps.

If you were in juvie, that would be paradise.

I'm optimistic from the trailers, too. At least it's R rated, if it was PG-13 I'd kill myself and then the creators.

1080p 60fps is pretty standard.

I'm not sure most indie games count. They aren't exactly resource intensive, y'know.

Are Destiny, Halo MCC, Halo 5 (though Halo 5 is structured so the resolution drops rather than the frame rate when things are too intensive for the system, but I've never noticed the shift so I don't know how often that happens), Black Ops 3, and Battlefront indie games? I just named recent shooters that I know of because it would take too long to list all of the games.

Again, you make it out to be a bigger deal than it is with the resolution variations in Halo and Blops 3. Call of Duty has been 1080p 60fps since at least Ghosts.I have never once seen the frame rates or resolution dip at all in either. Don't pretend like frame rate dips aren't a thing on PC, either. They're actually way more common from what I've seen. Arkham Knight in particular ran at a buttery smooth 0fps on PC. I thought they said pre-release that Destiny was going to be 1080p 60fps on both, and Battlefront is so pretty that I just assumed, but you are right there.
Here's a list some guy made of PS4 games nearly two years ago (keep in mind that this doesn't include Xbox One games at all, and it's almost two years old):
Battlefield 4
COD: AW
COD: Ghosts
Diablo 3
MGSV GZ
Metro 2033
Metro Last Light
Wolfenstein TNO
Outlast
Shadow Warrior
Sniper Elite 3
TLOU Remastered
Tomb Raider Definitive Edition
Trials Fusion
Trine 2
Warframe
War Thunder

I'm making a big deal out of resolution because of your claim that 1080/60 is standard. It just isn't. Don't read too far into it. I'm just refuting your claim. Call of Duty is consistently 60fps on consoles, though they typically aren't high res. It's what's expected. Black Ops 3 dropped the ball. Frame drops are only common if you go above what your hardware is capable of. I don't expect 1080/60 out of a low budget PC, just as I don't expect it from a console.
>kek arkham knight :^)
>that'll show those PC players
PC gets its fair share of shitty games. I've never said anything otherwise. Don't try to get all defensive because I've proven you wrong.

Check the reply to this for all those games. I have to split it due to going over the line break limit.

1080/60 is not common on consoles, though it is more common on PS4 than XBone. That's just how it is. It's much better for Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo to sell affordable hardware than it is for them to go balls to the wall on a box that'll get outdated in a couple months. What I don't get is why you're so defensive over this. All that I've posted is facts. Does that fact that PC is better hinder your enjoyment of these games or something? Just play them. I don't care what your preference is. If anyone has ever paid even the tiniest iota of attention to any of my posts on these sort of things, they'd know that I have nothing against consoles. Why would I have some many of them if I did?

The content makes it seem like 1080p 60fps is unheard of on consoles, which isn't true. You act like I'm actually genuinely upset; I literally couldn't give less of a fuck about any of this. I'm not defensive, I'm making an easy to understand point. I didn't even look anything up before posting, why would I get defensive? Did you think you masterfully convinced me to abandon my deeply held views? I made an offhand and unresearched comment, then copy-pasted a list from playstation forums. I don't care that much.
About the exceeding your hardware part: that's exactly why frame rate drops are more common on PC, you can customize the settings while console games are already optimized.

>Only facts
>PC is better
>Black Ops 3 dropped the ball
Both of those are completely subjective. PC can be better because they can be as high quality as the money you're willing to spend. Consoles are essentially just PC's designed for video games almost exclusively: if you spend more, you'll get something better. Less, you'll get something worse.
Anyway, "better" is an assessment of the quality of the experience. I'd take Gears alone (my second favorite Xbox One exclusive franchise) over the entirety of any other platforms' exclusives, so for me, Xbox is "better." Some people might prioritize Bad Rats (picked that example because it's generally regarded as a bad game) over every other game out there, so for them a low-end PC can trump or equal anything else out there.

It generally is. It's been like that since gen 5. Before that, 60fps was bog standard on consoles. Gen 5 started the trend of 30fps (or lower, like Ocarina of Time). Only now are console devs realizing that people don't care as much about about resolution and flashy effects. They see that we care about smooth gameplay. While I'm not a fan of most CoD games, I've always given them their due respect for always targeting 60 fps, even at the cost of resolution.

>PC is better
Yes. Ignore exclusives. Leave out all of the first party Nintendo games. Leave out the thousands of PC exclusives. Leave out the XBone and PS4 exclusives. The PC will come out on top every time. A budget PC of 5 years ago will match or exceed a current gen console. Frame rate and resolution aren't the only factors to consider. There's load times, visual quality, etc.

>Black Ops 3 dropped the ball
>not fact
Come on, really? Even I expected better.

I have never once seen a frame rate drop in Blops 3. The game has amongst the worst servers I've ever seen in a AAA title aside from GTA online, but frame rate is not one of it's issues. What do you define as a budget PC? Are you saying a PC that was $400 5 years ago can equal or exceed current gen consoles? Because I doubt it.

>$400 PC
More like $600. That's budget to me. Though I suppose if you bought your hardware on sale and got good deals, I don't see why not. It isn't that hard to shave $200 off the cost of your PC around Black Friday or Cyber Monday.

A $350 PC from last year will totally do it though. Just check out the Potato Masher.

So $250-$300 more than consoles is budget? $350 is equal to PS4, and that PC doesn't come with $60 controllers, an OS, or an HDMI cable like a PS4 does. Also, according to some of the comments, this may not work as advertised, and some of it's parts aren't being sold anymore.

You forget that the PS4 released at $400, and the XBone released at $500. So, hardware that cost $600 5 years ago would be quite a bit cheaper by the time the consoles released.

No one pays for Windows. That's an unnecessary ~$100 cost. I don't know about you, but I've got keyboards, mice, controllers, and HDMI cables for days. I play games. This is my hobby. Someone else that plays on PC will likely already have most of this on hand too.

The parts aren't available because this was built with parts that were already discontinued or were soon going to be discontinued to begin with. The fact that it's a year old doesn't help that.

Yeah, released at, but isn't now. Also, your forgetting that $150 of that Xbone cost came from the kinect, which is an accessory that doesn't come with that PC so it's unfair to compare the costs that way.
Are you suggesting they simply pirate Windows? Because I can get anything for free if I steal it, not a fair price comparison.
I do not have any extra keyboards or mice around, and you can't exactly just assume that people will. I have controllers only because I have consoles, but if this is meant to replace consoles, than why would you have a console in addition?
If the parts were discontinued, it could contribute to the low price. So, it being inaccessible now and possibly only being that cheap at the time because of extraneous factors means that that cost is irrelevant to most current consumers who did not acquire it at the time.

The Kinect is/was mandatory though. The cost has to be included. You didn't have a choice.

Yes. Pirate Windows. Microsoft doesn't really care. Just don't go trying to run a business on pirated copies. They certainly care then. Or just install a Linux distro. There's roughly 1500 games available right now.

If you don't, a cheapo Logitech bundle will do just fine. Expensive keyboards and mice are not a requirement, and you'll do fine without them. I played on a ball mouse and a membrane keyboard until a few years ago, and I still keep them around for backup. And yes, replace your existing console. It isn't something for someone to just go into blindly. The assumption is that they want to switch from console to PC. Though I don't know why you would. The best solution is to use both.

The thing is that newer, better hardware is now available at the same price. Why would you want that old stuff? It's just an example of what was possible a year ago.

Was mandatory. It's not anymore. Also, it gives you voice command functionality, the ability to scan QR codes, automatic sign in, and other features, so it's not like it's deadweight loss. Why would you buy something else approximately equal to a console for the same price? That just seems pointless, because you can't resell a console for it's original price. It seems most PC users say that under $600, you're better off buying a console in general.

>Battlefield 4
900p 60fps

>Advanced Warfare
Hey, you got one! The XBone version isn't true 1080p though.

>Ghosts
Small framedrops on PS4, fine otherwise. XBone is consistent 720/60

>Diablo 3
You got another, though this isn't a demanding game. I mean, the PC requirements are roughly equivalent to what I had 8-10 years ago. There's also slight framedrops on XBone.

>MGS V
You got one more. Good job.

>Metro 2033 & Last Light
This is also correct. XBone is not 1080p. And keep in mind that this is a last gen game.

>Wolfenstein
Based id does it again.

>Outlast
It looks good overall, but is not a demanding game in reality. I maxed it with a budget PC 3 years ago.
>Shadow Warrior
Heavy action drops the framerate into the 40s. Also 900p on XBone.

I like how you keep saying "you got one" every single time, being passive aggressive as shit, then act like I'm mad. So what your saying is that almost all of the are true, but you're finding a way to nitpick by saying "not demanding" or "last gen."(That's especially considering Tomb Raider was developed with next gen in mind). Occasional drops do not make the game any less 1080p 60fps, otherwise my getting dropped from games in Blops 3 would mean that game has no multiplayer. The Xbox One versions are irrelevant anyway: this was a list made about PS4 games. I didn't even make the list, so any inaccuracies are not my issue.

Yeah. It does kinda sound like that. Oops.

Well we are talking about consoles in general. I thought I'd add in both. It also helps highlight just how much better the PS4 versions are too. Last gen is totally a reason though. Those games were originally released some time ago. And a game being less resource intensive will make it run at a higher and more consistent framerate. Outlast runs on potatoes. Trine 2 runs on potatoes. I know because I've done it.

Outlast could make me shit a whole potato without digesting it. Fuck Chris Walker. Last gen would normally apply, but Tomb Raider wasn't like TLOU where it was built originally for previous gen and then ported to next gen (actually, the TLOUR is still pretty intensive). It was designed for what was then next gen consoles as well as the previous gen.

Like I said, Outlast looks good, but in reality, it isn't a demanding game. The texture size is so-so, and a lot of them are hidden in darkness anyway. There's not really anything with extremely high poly counts, and there's never really too much going on on-screen to begin with. I'd be surprised if it didn't run at 1080/60, even on XBone. Now, had you said you would shit a potato because of the scariness, I would believe you. It spooped me more than once.

Tomb Raider is the same 3 year old game updated to have a bit more parity with the PC version. In my opinion, it should have been PC exclusive at first, completely skipping the X360 and PS3 and being released later on PS4/XBone. The framerate was eh and the visuals were muddy on PS3. I didn't really enjoy it.

Shitting a potato because of the scariness is what I meant.

Ok, good. I just wasn't sure, what with the way this conversation had gone and all.

Did you think I shit entire potatoes in my pants because of decent graphics or something? We were talking about a horror game, and I specifically called out one of the antagonists. I wasn't cursing him for his exceptional optimization skills, but because he's a douchebag who calls me a pig then tears my head off.

Yeah. People are amazed by graphics all the time. And I completely forgot that was his name.

It's been a while.

>Sniper Elite 3
Again, action drops the framerate into the 40s, with the XBone getting the shittier end of the stick.

>TLOU
"Enhanced" port of last gen game.

>Tomb Raider Definitive
Last gen game.

>Trials Fusion
You got it. 900p on XBone.

>Trine 2
Runs at 1080/60 on everything except the moldiest of potatoes. So what?

>Warframe
Another with drops into the 40s. I imagine the XBone is worse.

>War Thunder
Locked at 30 fps.

Yeah, I understand that point of view. I look at Obamacare as a good example of how compromise doesn't always work, and how party politics gets in the way of progress. The original bill was written by a republican (Mitt Romney if I'm not mistaken), and the democrats liked the bill. But when Obama wants to adopt it and build on it, all of a sudden, the entire republican body in the House is no longer on board. And then they compromise and make all these bullshit ammendments that completely warp and twist this previously efficient and simple system, all because the democratic president said it was a good idea. I'll admit, it's more complicated than that, but that's the sparknotes version. What frustrates me the most is how a lot of republican congressmen will get chastised and ostracized because they worked with those on the other side of the aisle. Poeple take too much pride in their party affiliations and it pisses me off that we base our judgements of people by who they voted for.

Thanks

I'd blame Bush's Cabinet and Congress, not Bush himself. I think people fail to realize that the president doesn't really have as much power as we think they do. Sure, If a president is capable of wielding the full power of the office (e.g. Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, JFK), then they can pretty much do anything they goddamn please (e.g. trail of tears, muckraking and regulation, WWII and fixing the economy, Marilyn Monroe). That usually only happens if the congress allows it to happen. Jackson got away with all of that terrible shit he did because there weren't so many limits to his power. In fact, Jackson is the reason there are so many limits to presidential power.

Idk, there are a lot of things to consider. I think it's even worse when a congress refuses to work with the president on anything (like our current congress. Compromise is key, assholes)

"Marilyn Monroe" took me a second. Funny as fuck; she wasn't the only one JFK was all up in either.
FDR did try to dangerously expand executive power, though, and nearly destroyed the system of checks and balances.
It seems to me that the way it's been until very recently is that Democrats dictated legislation, and in order to compromise Republicans would need to accept provisions that they opposed with no benefit to themselves. It's like saying:
"These are my fries!"
"Well, I want your fries!"
"No, they're mine!"
"Well, just give me half of them then."
"No, they're all mine!"
"Why aren't you ever willing to compromise? You're being irrational."
It's a bit more complicated but that's what it feels like sometimes.

Yeah, I understand that point of view. I look at Obamacare as a good example of how compromise doesn't always work, and how party politics gets in the way of progress. The original bill was written by a republican (Mitt Romney if I'm not mistaken), and the democrats liked the bill. But when Obama wants to adopt it and build on it, all of a sudden, the entire republican body in the House is no longer on board. And then they compromise and make all these bullshit ammendments that completely warp and twist this previously efficient and simple system, all because the democratic president said it was a good idea. I'll admit, it's more complicated than that, but that's the sparknotes version. What frustrates me the most is how a lot of republican congressmen will get chastised and ostracized because they worked with those on the other side of the aisle. Poeple take too much pride in their party affiliations and it pisses me off that we base our judgements of people by who they voted for.

Its 2015+1

You do realize that physical money in circulation accounts for less than 10% of total assets in the U.S. economy, right? Listen man, I don't want to do this all night so:
1. I already covered how much they are allowed to print (or rather, who regulates the printing of money).
2.The U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing.
3. Yes, the Federal Reserve does charge interest.
I'm really not that interested, I'm sure you can find someone else to give your spiel to.

It's just that you typically don't refer to a political sycophant as a muppet. It would be funny to see people accuse Medvedev of being Putin's muppet, though.