Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Member Badge

  • Members

Recent Profile Visitors

1346 profile views
  1. Apparently I needed to make a disclaimer that I really didn't think would be needed. Disclaimer: these numbers, 75 and 100, are complete ass pulls since I don't actually apply numerical values to every possible policy in order to get nice numbers and rather are made simply to convey that certainly one party is worse than the other in general, but also that in general I am highly dissatisfied with both parties. I could have used 50 and 80, 50 and 100, or even 60 and 90 and the point wouldn't have changed. As for court packing that is pretty damn terrible. It is quite literally setting it up to rule uncontested so that you may do as you please without risk of resistance. The court has been politicized and needs fixing, but court packing is going in the wrong way. It is quite literally further politicizing the court rather than making it less politicized. As for if the party positions would swap. Probably. I make no attempt at hiding my dislike for both. However, the FDR example is rather interesting since it is effectively the positions swapped. I'll have to read up more to see if the republican s of the time were for court packing to offset all of FDR's picks. At work right now so can't do the research at the moment and don't know off the top of my head. The history doesn't matter comment made by Lewyn in this thread I will need to address later. That will be a rant most likely and will take time and possibly further research. Edit- 7:41AM - In hindsight that was probably too much snark to reply to what I read as snark and I basically dodged your question without explaination. Bad mood at work shouldn't have been online. Now too tired and sore and too much to do to try and come up with a better response. As for why no policy examples. I long ago got tired of bringing up examples except in very specific circumstances to specific arguments such as court packing here. It gets really tiring having both sides trying to rip your head off for having an opinion/stance that doesn't fit into a nice little box for them. But a quick view of where I come from with non-asspulled numbers. You know the ISideWith online quiz? When I took it back in the lead up to 2016 it placed both the Deomcrats and Republicans below 50 percent. So looking at my politics from a lens outside of myself, I apparently disagree with both parties more than I agree with them. I would probably disagree with that statement, but I certainly wouldn't question all the parties getting an F(less than 60) grade. /Edit.
  2. I put my Panne over to +SPD to help her keep up with the speed increases. Pirate Veronica was another candidate since she is -ATK and so often pulls my bacon out of the fire. But I don't ever plan to +10 her so Panne won out. Makes me kinda sad that even Maxed out like this her statline looks like nothing special. @Othin Nice. That reminds me that I actually have a +ATK/-SPD Lyon that I never bothered to level up since he wasn't my target. I should probably level him at some point.
  3. I have already gone over this. But I guess I will do it again. It is only Court-packing in the way that say FDR who got to fill the seat of 8 justices is. The current system is effectively set up as a gambling system. Both parties are basically gambling on being in power during death/retirements of Justices. Sometimes this results in one party or the other making a big sweep. Though as far as I know FDR is definitely the record holder there. Point is this is how the game has been setup up for centuries effectively and isn't anything new. Rushing a confirmation through is nothing new. Adams after he lost the election managed to nominate and cram through a justice in 2 months before Jefferson took Office. Jackson nominated TWO during his last full day as president, though one declined to serve so he really only got to fill one seat. Six presidents who have lost or withdrawn an election have managed an election year nomination. Trump would only be the 7th president to do so. Thus he is in good company. Now, I think we certainly could use a nice law to prevent such shenanigans, but it is the rule of the game right now and both parties have been content to gamble in this way in the past. If folks finally decided they are tired of this and make a law preventing election year nominations I would be in full support of the attempt. Though this would further make election years disruptive, but it is probably worth it to prevent these kinds of situations. Holding a seat open. Multiple times the senate has chosen to take no action on a nomination. I am not even sure if you can say Republicans hold the record. John Tyler tried to nominate Read in February of his last year but the senate blocked him and his name was eventually withdrawn. Tyler was blocked hard by the senate. He had two vacancies during his term that ended in 1845, one opened in 1843 and another in 1844. He was repeatedly blocked and rejected over and over. He did finally get one through at the very end by nominating a Democrat, though apparently even that confirmation came as a surprise. So this guy effectively was effectively prevented from filling a seat for nearly two years. While he kept withdrawing and submitting new names means that each individual nomination probably doesn't take the record for most time in limbo, if you decide to look at it as an unfilled vacancy instead of an individual confirmation, it doesn't really appear the Republicans hold the record. So again not new and is just how the rules are set up. We can vote to change them, though this one is a bit trickier to settle I think. But you could switch it so that nominations are automatically confirmed unless the senate(with the typical standard majority) votes no. So if there is no vote then the nomination just goes through after X amount of time. After all if the senate doesn't vote no, then clearly they have no objections right? Now as for court packing. Picking up FDR's court packing plan is a lot more acceptable than the bits I have been hearing would be. FDR's concern with his plan(other than you know forcing his policy through) was on the fact that due to austerity measures Justices were refusing to retire since they didn't want to retire with a reduced pension. So FDR's plan was to allow a president to make a nomination for any justice over 80, I think it was, and when that justice did eventually retire their seat would just vanish. Basically 9 would still be the magic number, this would just reduce the amount of gambling for vacancies during office. The plan basically became unnecessary when he effectively got to nominate the entire court. There are also plenty of suggestions for term limits, but this would be very hard since I think that one requires an amendment, which is why FDR did his end run plan. FDR's plan doesn't require an amendment. Though I wonder if you could combine term limits with FDR's idea to get around it? Assuming you prefer term limits to just an age cut off. Its less equally bad and both bad. I mean I don't care if the cesspit is 75percent shit or 100percent shit. I am not wanting to wade in regardless. So my tactical voting ends up becoming very narrowly focused so as to avoid walking in shit as much as possible and in general with the aim to prevent anyone from flipping the board completely. So scum as usual bugs me less than piles of new scum being added making the mess even worse. And stuff like court packing suggestions makes me really want a lame-duck government so as to reduce the amount of shit coming down.
  4. All this court packing talk keeps trying to push me towards a republican ticket. As scummy as the blocking and forcing through of candidates feels it is still something that is rather typical. My reading up on all these involved issues is fairly basic, but my knowledge indicates that court packing specifically to change the courts makeup to favor your party would be a whole new level of scum. As for ramming through a nominee during an election year? John Marshall was forced through in an election year with TWO months before Thomas Jefferson assumed office. In other words John Adams had already lost the election but made his pick anyways. And Adams is hardly the only one. 5 times a president who lost or withdrawn from the election has nominated a justice on their way out after said loss. And Andrew Jackson on his very last full day as president of his 2nd term nominated a justice. Actually he nominated two and got them confirmed though 1 declined to serve. My point being, rushing through a pick just before getting knocked out of or otherwise leaving office, may be scummy, but it isn't a new kind of scum and more just the rules of the game. Packing the court is more akin to flipping the gameboard. Changing the rules I am fine with. Making a rule about elections years let alone making it so the president going out can't nominate? Probably a good idea. Deciding that whomever has power at the time can just up and change the court to suit their policies at any time so that they can ram whatever they want through? Less so. As for blocking a candidate. Haven't done enough reading yet on that. But a quick look at wikipedia seems to indicate the Garland situation was not the first time the senate simply took no action. As said I haven't yet managed enough reading to know exactly how those instances played out. But a quick look indicates that the Republicans really stretched the no action out(which isn't very surprising I don't think). It looks as if nearly all those cases were instances a lot closer to the election than in the Garland case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Nominations_in_the_last_year_of_a_presidency And finally as for Court Packing. Pretty much everytime the Supreme Court has had its number of seats increased has been due to expansion of the country and creation of new circuit courts to cover the new territories. So nearly doubling the size solely so that you can get the majority would be an entirely new level of court manipulation. The closest thing I can find to that is when they tried to decrease the size to 7. The Republicans of the time did not like that so many of the circuits were comprised entirely of southern states. However, wikipedia states that the Chief Justice at the time was the biggest influencer of the act and his hope was that reducing the justices would lead to an increase in salary. So. . . yeah. . . I think I must not have been clear. I was mostly talking about of the people who do vote. If you don't bother to vote at all I generally assume you don't land in that "want them gone" camp. Of course there are people who want both candidates gone and don't think it is worth it to bother voting 3rd party or etc. But most of the folks in my personal circuit who actively dislike 1 or more of the candidates to the point that they want them gone do bother to vote. Even if only for a 3rd party. Though that mostly started up in 2016. Before 2016 most of them were blue no matter who type people since blue was the lesser evil. Ever since the lead up to 2016 though the most vocal of them appear to be Green. Anyways, I am not a fan of compulsory voting and would probably move any politician in support of it on my blacklist. It seems many of the compulsory voting places just let you turn in a black/voided type ballot. Which just baffles me. Imaging myself as a non-voter being forced to drive in since I live in the middle of nowhere with Eustace as a neighbor just because you really want me to turn in a blank piece of paper just . . . infuriates me. Same with all the wasted paper, the wasted fuel, wasted hours of work(since you'll need more staffing), etc. The only time it makes sense to me is if you are forcing it in order to poll why people are feeling disenfranchised in order to solve the problem of low turn out. And there are other ways to go about that. Also it doesn't really help much since such voters are likely to vote with little research. It won't change much since folks already do that(so it isn't a bad thing or at least not a thing that would make anything worse), but I again don't see the point in forcing folks to do so. Let them decide if it is worth their effort. Don't go pointing guns at people's heads to force them to vote. That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth and is in my opinion the lazy man's way to try and 'solve' the problem. Compulsory voting does not equal enthusiastic voting. You want people to vote, find out why they aren't engaged and engage them. Its not easy, but that is the right way to do it. That said if it came with an internet voting option bundled in I would probably be pacified since that is something I would like to see and I can compromise as long as I am offered something I am willing to concede for. Sadly there are so many security issues that I don't really envision this happening anytime soon. If ever in my lifetime. I know in my case if I were a non-voter I would just withhold differently*. As long as you make at least 90 percent of the tax due you don't owe any penalties you just pay the difference up. I already have to do this on the city level due to issues with city and employer not syncing up well(I work in a different city than I live in). In addition penalties tend to be waved if you owe less than 1000 dollars minus what you already paid. So unless you miscalculate by more than a grand you probably won't pay a penalty. Folks mostly just take the big check because it is easy, anxiety free since you don't have to worry about accidentally miscalculating and underpaying, and effectively forces them to save for a potential big purchase. *Actually I am a vindictive asshole once pissed off so if something like that happened I would probably just permanently spite vote against the party responsible, or at least until another party pissed me off. Once you piss me off I am often more than willing to chop off my own hand just to spite you. I try not to get pissed off. It isn't good for me or anyone else.
  5. A bit more complicated than just that. What you are effectively talking about is Cloture which brings the debate to an end and forces a vote. This is done to defeat filibusters and has a fair bit of history. Note that the actual confirmation just needs a majority to accept or reject the nominee, but blocking the vote via filibuster was a way to force the much stiffer requirements onto the table. The threshold has been reduced again and again due to it being too hard to make. And both parties have been playing a role in this. In 2013 the Democrats changed the rules for the lower courts to be simple majority, setting the precedent for the Republicans to extend it to the Supreme Court in 2017. A bit further back in 1975 the Democrats reduced it from the 2/3 to break the filibuster to 60. Oddly they had exactly 61 seats on the senate when they made that move to block filibusters. This is a classic case of being careful what you allow your side to do, because in doing so you arm your opposition the same way. All that said though, requiring a super majority would be nice for a lot of things. Or you know even just a majority of over 50 percent of voters for presidential elections. As far as I am concerned 2016 should have been a wash and redone since neither candidate could claim to even represent half the country. I would say a 60 percent floor would be nice, but that would actually be almost never met. Not many presidents manage that. But you wouldn't think a 50 percent floor would be too much to ask. Of the 20 times presidents have failed to get at least 50 percent of the popular vote, only 10 times was there not a strong 3rd party present to cause that. Most of the time those additional parties consumed at least 10 percent of the vote. Twice it was 8 percent. So without a strong 3rd party consuming lets say at least 5 percent of the vote(since that is the threshold for federal funding) a 50 percent requirement doesn't seem like too much to ask. But I am getting off topic here. Just a bit of a pet peeve of mine that you can get elected to represent the people even when more than half of the people you 'represent' want you gone, cause lets be honest these days it is often less of I prefer this person's policies and more that person can't be allowed to win. If you can't manage to get at least 50 percent in a system heavily limited to two parties, then too bad too sad, but you don't actually represent the people and shouldn't be in office.
  6. I don't think I have ever bothered to keep this thread up with my +10's. Not that I have many of them. But Eirika hasn't been my only one for quite some time. Anyways lets start with Eirika now that is in all her Resplendent Glory. I'll include their favorite accessory as a lazy crop in. She really is glorious, ain't she? Clair was my 2nd unit to 5*+10, and she is basically never used these days. I never even bothered to Dragon Flower her. My 3rd was Amelia if I recall right. Took quite a while since she is 5* limited. Quite possibly my most used unit, though Resplendent Eirika is in the attempt of trying to steal that crown. Sadly these days she feels kinda slow. Makes me kinda regret using a +ATK as her base way back in the day. Panne was next one to get +10'ed. Panne was my Awakening Waifu and I still say she is gorgeous. So this is definitely a case of +10'ing a favorite without paying much attention to actual in game use just like with Eirika originally. Anyways Panne ran a mostly budget Galeforce build until just recently. Between Petrine and a Julian and an Eleonora pity breaking me not too long back I have gone ahead and fully built her. I debated between +ATK and +SPD, but just like Amelia, Panne's speed just isn't enough these days. So she needs every little bit she can get. After Panne was Myrrh. Somehow managed to get her up to +10. I got like 4 copies of her in ~100 orbs at one point. She really likes me apparently. I had originally wanted +ATK but +ATK never showed up. +DEF isn't a bad runner up though. And with stats climbing higher and higher she is more and more leaning on those extra points in defense to keep her Prf up and running. And my 6th and 7th +10's came fairly quickly together. Finally decided to burn some grails to finish merging up Black Knight as my 6th +10. Once upon a time I used him. But Myrrh kicked him out of the Red Armor slot and then Valentine Ike booted him out of the Sword Armor slot. So he really doesn't get much use these days, but I felt he deserved to get +10'ed anyways. Caineghis, oddly, has pity broken me a bit more than expected. So I still had him laying around for DD4 and Vengeful. Black Knight already had DD3, apparently I gave it to him at some point. And apparently I was still using him off and on when Dragon Flowers became a thing since he actually got some applied to him. And Finally when looking at making up a Beast/Dragon team centered around Panne I decided to just go ahead and +10 Reyson. Had plenty of copies of him laying around. Looking at these 7 fellas . . . apparently I have a need for speed. Ross someday will have to get +10'ed. But I don't have a +ATK version of him pulled yet and he isn't a particularly exciting unit for me since he would just be built as a typical brave axe infantry. Ewan would also be nice, but no way am I dumping enough orbs to push him up to +10 and so far he isn't the red to be pity breaking me. Brave Celica and Fallen Mareeta seem to be the reds most determined to pity break me.
  7. DOH! This happened while letting the AI autobattle to level up. Of course my already leveled units have their weapons unequipped so they can't break that rubble. You just can't trust the AI can you?
  8. Well I thought I was going to be ranting about pity breakers again. Got a full circle of red at 4.75 percent. And a Fallen Mareeta was all that came from it when I was going for a Duo Sigurd. But I had 9 orbs left so opened one more session and basically yolo'ed a +RES/-HP Sigurd. So yay me? Got my cavalry dancer and Null Follow up/Flashing Blade 4 fodder. That duo skill is kinda finicky.
  9. Aversa and Marth are the ones I have been struggling with. I don't like limited battles so I often skip clearing them all the way up. But I am currently working on a project that needs a certain compile. And if I get everything cleared I should be able to just barely squeeze it out with the rewards this season rather than waiting until the end of next weeks season. Anyways for anyone struggling with Aversa, this video helped me out immensely Marth Abyssal was such a pain. And normally I would have just ignored it since no way was that worth 20 Divine codes. Maybe 10x that, but definitely not a measly 20. Finally managed it with -ATK Pirate Veronica, Neutral Keaton, -ATK Kaden, and Neutral Legendary Azura. Still a massive pain and probably the only time Keaton will be using the Phantom Speed seal. But Pirate Veronica once again proves that she was worth every orb even though I had several Osian pity breakers in the attempt to get her.
  10. So I have been debating. I have had a spare Nailah I have been sitting on for a while(a pity breaker at some point). So currently I have +SPD/-HP Nailah that is built and I have a Brave Ike that I sacked a Nailah for(I intentionally tried to get two). So I have a Green and a Blue Null C-Disrupt. Eirika has been a member of my Arena core since forever(my first 5*+10) and a favorite character so I figured I could bite the bullet for her resplendent. But I technically never built her up beyond being a tactics bot that could face tank while supporting the bonus unit. She is running the same build for a long time. I don't think I have changed her since before the infantry b-skills started coming out. So what I have been debating with myself over is if I should bite the bullet and sacrifice my one spare Nailah to her. DC/Null C-Disrupt would be pretty nifty to have on her and would give me a null c-disrupt in all but colorless. But I am not really sure if that is a good use of that resource. It isn't like Null C-Disrupt grows on trees and while she is a core Arena unit, she doesn't get used in AR where I would more frequently expect to need Null C-Disrupt. And I don't think trying to make her into an Astra super tank to give me a super tank for both seasons would really work too well. So of course my hesitation is coming from not wanting to burn my one inheritable source of Null C-Disrupt to her when I may later want it for an Astra super tank. And boy do I want an Astra Super tank. If I ever go back to trying to climb high I know I will want an option other than just my vantage Keaton for clearing maps.
  11. "The choice is clear." I am on Team Edelgard for the last round. I still have up my Panne.
  12. Wasn't really expecting Tiki to win. But is ok. Feel bad for Lysithea though. Wonder if I should change my lead. My Panne probably is not the best support for Team Tiki. I didn't mind much for one round, since Tiki doesn't really need march support but maybe I should reconsider.
  13. Wish I had the same experience. But I keep getting high res units that just block me hard. And hit physical which I don't have a good tanker for(FU Niles. FU.) However, this is mostly in the 20+ levels that I have been having issues. Though at least Mia got the Wrathful Gravity offered to her early on and even has Dazzling Staff in her B slot just before hitting those painful levels. Can't tell you how often Gravity has saved my Bacon. I think Elincia is just confused and Oliver needs a better tome. That spd refine isn't doing much for him. But Elincia is basically my only option for dealing with the high res ranged foes. But the Stance plus Bond Seal still leaves her defense very low. Oliver doesn't tank the hits badly but he hits like such a wet noodle against the high res foes. Quite often what happens is Mia attacks and then Oliver drags her back. If needed he can get danced and drag her around some more. Rinse and repeat. Takes a while to whittle folks down that way.
  14. Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to try and disarm someone with a knife when you are barehanded? The common wisdom is that you don't get away from a knife fight uncut. That doesn't mean you'll lose, but that is incredibly dangerous and should only be attempted as a last resort. A better argument is that cops normally out number the perp and I am assuming the disarming crowd is ok with Tasers and such so numbers plus ranged electrical based weaponry would make such a situation far less dangerous. Even non-ranged electrical based weaponry could put the situation in favor of the cops if it were a long cattleprod type weapon that could outreach the knife. Firearms aren't strictly necessary against a knife when you have numbers on your side. But dealing with a knife is still dangerous so you need something to out range it or someone is getting cut. Seriously. Knifes. Are. Really. Fucking. Dangerous. Reach keeps them in check and there are other tools/weapons that can help, but going against one unarmed is bad news man. There are plenty of stories of Military Veterans dying to knifes when they try to help out someone being attacked/etc. Seriously. Knifes. Are. Really. Fucking. Dangerous. So are guns. And the cops have shown that a large number of them go for the gun WAY too early or in situations where it isn't called for. If you can't use a tool properly and safely, don't be surprised when the tool gets taken away. So I am not disagreeing with the 'get guns out of cops hands' thing(though I would probably argue for a nuanced approach), but hand to hand combat vs knife isn't a good solution. There are plenty of other tools you can give to cops that can make that matchup less dangerous. The COVID situation is interesting. There are almost certianly 'extra' deaths being recorded, however, there are also almost certainly deaths being missed. In the middle of a pandemic this is not an exact science. We don't know which way the inaccuracies actually lean. We can just do the best with what data we do have. However, a bigger impact on death rates is likely to be the asymptomatic. Our total number of cases could easily be twice as high as what is reported. There are some reports/speculation that as many as 80 percent could could show little or no symptoms. This is big issue. IF that many are asymptomatic that makes the mask issue and testing extremely important, but it also means that the disease isn't nearly as lethal as initially feared. Since the vast majority of folks wouldn't even know they have it. That said we are still in the middle of the issue. It'll likely be quite some time before all the data is collected/sorted and we have an 'accurate' view of the disease. All we can really do now is try to keep the spread low in an attempt to flatten the curve and keep it from hitting those most vulnerable to it until we can get effective means to fight it(i.e. a vaccine/etc)
  15. Lets see. I have the Dark fellas. And none of the braves yet. My first thought is to jump on Tiki's team. But I'll hold off on picking as long as I can. Maybe I'll nab a brave or two before then(or decide to pick my free summon).
  • Create New...