Zasplach
-
Posts
434 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Zasplach
-
-
10 minutes ago, Dayni said:
So, I confess to not being sure as to what's going on with this stuff about the memo. It appears that both ends of the spectrum are obviously making the case that the memo will do good for their side, but what's it actually on about and is it likely to work?
Seeing what's already known on the obstruction case is a bit mindblowing. Like, what the fuck is my immediate response to reading the parade of bad choice made, especially point 11.
Can the USA actually recover from this, or will changes have to be made in the system?
Eh, the Republic is always simultaneously in need of systemic changes and in a state of being fine, it's a pretty flexible beast all things considered.
This memo is really just a statement to how mouth-foamy partisan Washington has become. The House Intelligence Committee has released memos like this before, now they've tended to be bipartisan and not so controversial, but this is mostly controversial because the President has pitted it as his salvation from the Mueller investigation. In terms of the content, it's mostly going to say that at times the FBI and the CIA violate the civil liberties of American citizens by obfuscating the truth when they apply for FISA warrants. Is anyone really surprised by that admission or statement? I'm not, of course the most powerful law enforcement agencies in the world violate civil liberties, that's the very nature of their existence. Now, this is gonna be a whole bunch of noise because Fox is gonna say, 'this violation of civil liberties is unparalleled in it's political scope' and CNN is gonna say 'this seems pretty much par for the course', so it's mostly uninteresting.
In terms of President Trump getting indicted, I still don't see it; I'm not even sure he can be indicted in the traditional sense, but I still have yet to see him do anything beyond being incompetent and blustery, two traits the American voting public were aware of, or should have been, when we elected him to the most esteemed office in the land. All the talk I've seen so far of his Russian collusion and obstruction are mostly just missteps of a political novice, I don't think that's enough to drum him out, and I have no desire to see him stay.
-
1 hour ago, Tryhard said:
So apparently Trump did want to fire Mueller... back in June, according to the NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html
Thank goodness he didn't, the type of potential constitutional crisis this could (have) create could shake the Republic. If he does fire Mueller and the Congress forgoes an investigation, the investigation basically ends, not a good precedent to set.
This is the kind of action he will feel more emboldened to do if the GOP retains control of both houses of Congress next year, strange things may be afoot.
-
2 hours ago, Comrade said:
Right, I really need to vent.
I wa pleased as punch with this government shutdown. I've said multiple times and I'll say it again: Government does too many things that we can simply leave to the free market. The fact that there are about 800k non-essential gov't employees in the USA makes me wonder how many there are here in Israel (and if the Ministry of Interior is anything to go on, it's far too many).
But anyway, I was pleased that this gov't shutdown happened in the first place. Then reality set in. I'll even quote myself from a conversation on Facebook with a friend when I realized what was really going on.
'Non-essential' is such a loaded term; you know who doesn't get paid during the shutdowns is non-active duty military, researchers scientists employed by the DOD and the CDC and the like and diplomats posted around the world. And you know what happens with a majority of these people, they work and they expected to be compensated afterwards because they generally are. Most people who worked will be payed after all this is worked out. These continuous CR's are a dumb way to run a government, both parties should actually pass the 8 appropriations bills that would give us a yearly budget. If people really feel that we should fire federal employees, it's an argument that should me made publicly and in the halls of the Congress, this game of shutting the government down and not filling positions in the bureaucracy is a cowardly way to try to shrink the government; if that's what people want they should elect members who believe that and say so, so the rest of us can vet that belief.
And in terms of the shutdown, the Democrats were never gonna get what they wanted, they don't control any aspect of the federal government, they hardly control any state governments for that matter. If they feel their policies are right, they should campaign on them and win elections, right now they are in the minority , shutting down the government was never going to get them what they wanted. This was such a futile effort, I know Senator McConnell said he would let an immigration bill come to the floor and I suspect he will keep his word because he said it in public, but he knows better than anyone how mercurial President Trump is. I see no way that a bipartisan bill in the Senate that gets 30ish GOP votes and 40ish Dem votes, even comes to the floor of the House because Speaker Ryan has stuck religiously with the 'rule' of it requires the majority of the majority to pass laws, I don't see any 'moderate' immigration legislation that can get 115 GOP congressman behind it and President Trump signing it. Minorities don't get what they want in our Republic, their job is to stop what they see as the most extreme part of the majorities agenda from being enacted and to rally behind positions that the country wants as a whole, then they angle themselves to win elections.
In the Dems defense, in the history of the country one party has basically been in the majority while the other party has basically been their foil of 'we aren't the majority, we are everyone else who isn't this'. During the Antebellum era, you were basically either a Jacksonian Democrat who believed in a more democratic society, believed in Manifest Destiny, the expansion of the republic through expansion or war, and believed in states rights and letting states/individuals decide on slavery. Basically everyone else were Whigs, they had their own ideas like Henry Clay, but mostly they were Jacksonian foils. Then the Civil War happened, the GOP became the majority and they believed in high protective tariffs, the gold standard for money and laissez-faire economics, the Dems were basically their foils. Then the Depression happened, the New Deal coalition happened, the Dems dominated American politics for 60 years, the GOP was basically their foil and only won when people were pissed at the Dems and the Dems had full control of the Congress for basically 40 years, the GOP only won the Presidency twice in-between Hoover and Reagan and both Eisenhower and Nixon were moderates who were either war heroes or were very fortunate in '68 when the Dems were divided. Then the conservative revolution happened in the 80's and the country became more 'conservative' with basically 60% of the country leaning 'right' and now the GOP's agenda is well established and the Democratic party is basically a collection of everyone who isn't a Republican, which is lots of ideas really and when they are very successful lots of different ideologies. I suspect the GOP will control most state governments and set the agenda for the next 10-20 years maybe a little quicker with how quickly the pendulum seems to swing.
-
As a twenty-five year old who also remembers both sides of 911, I will second (or third) @Lord Raven's sentiment that terrorism wasn't a topic of much interest or really that great of a worry before that fateful day. My family didn't really talk about terrorism except for the Waco incident and the Oklahoma city bombings.
3 hours ago, Slumber said:The WH's sad attempt to blame the democrats really needs to have some repurcussions. It's flat-out propaganda if nobody calls it out.
YOU CONTROL ALL BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. MORE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE BILL THAN REPUBLICANS AGAINST IT. YOUR SHITTY MEDDLING WITH THE BILL IS THE REASON THIS IS HAPPENING, YOU ORANGE BOWEL MOVEMENT. THE REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALREADY REACHED AN AGREEMENT THAT YOU FUCKED WITH FOR NO GOOD REASON.
Couldn't even get a month into 2018 without some major political* fuck up by the president.
A domestic political fuck up, at least.
At least the senate gets a nice paid vacation.
Outside of the fact that the President says whatever pleases him, the Shutdown is a glorified pissing contest. Should the Congress come up with some sort of DACA bill? Yeah, but President Trump campaigned against it and he won, reap what you sow and what not. The government shutdown belongs just as much to the Dems as the GOP, the Democratic party shouldn't stoop to this stupid zero sum game that the GOP rose to during the stupid 2013 shutdown; the Dems have shown a willingness to govern to make decisions that benefit the country even if they don't benefit them politically. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to go to a vote, the Dems actually believe government can do positive good. Even if they think they can pin this mess on the Oompa-Loompa-in-chief, they should do the right thing and pass a funding bill. The GOP may never cave on the DACA issue, but they are the duly elected leaders of the legislative and executive branch, for good or for ill they get to do what they want within the law. If it's so bad and oppressive the Dems need to go campaign in the heartland (not just the coasts) and win, win big, show the GOP the consequences of their bad faith. But if the Dems are going to play the GOP's pissing contest and make national politics a never ending race to the bottom, then they can forget my vote and I suspect the vote of many like me who just want a functioning government run by grownups.
-
Just now, omegaxis1 said:
Can it be considered a real marriage when technically Deirdre was originally married to Sigurd? They were married and they did have Seliph. That would actually make her marriage with Arvis void more or less. So Seliph is not a bastard at all.
Also, were there any witnesses with Arvis there? It was just Arvis and the king. Plus, the point remains in that Julia would be intending to get rid of Julius, and the cult are still manipulating things behind the scene. No one knew that Arvis became just a puppet ruler until later. So regardless on the entire power struggle thing, Julia as the Loptyr host would still be the one in charge, and Arvis cannot stop her either way.
Women's marriages (in traditional medieval society) were only considered legitimate if their family assented to it. The marriage was legitimate for Sigurd, but Deidre's grandfather and father didn't assent to the marriage, but Deidre's marriage to Arvis was assented to by King Azmur, her male guardian. Obviously the whole mind erasure thing complicates the legal and personal matters, but by all rights Seliph is at best an heir to Baldo, but seems like a dubious heir to Heim.
Deidre witnessed this statement and only really stupid kings didn't leave wills attesting to their desire for inheritance, especially when the inheritance of your throne was in question(Azmur has no son and a granddaughter of dubious means) and Azmur doesn't seem stupid to me and he knows he's dying.
Most of Julius' power still comes from loyal members of the empire following his orders, the cult was useful, but most of the people who do his bidding, Ishtar, Blume, Dannan, Hilda are just 'bad people' not cultists, they do his bidding because he's the true emperor and they want to be in his good graces. Loptyr Julia is a malignant force to be sure, but if Julius still lives, her means of inheritance are extremely limited and she likely wouldn't have had the support to rest power from her father. Besides, a Naga Julius likely could have helped his father usher Julia away while Naga Julia has limited means in the political realm as long as her father and brother still hold so much power.
-
Just now, omegaxis1 said:
I doubt it. Remember that Arvis couldn't ever oppose Julius because Loptyr was too powerful, as he had tried to exile Julius once, and was given a painful punishment as a result. In which case, he would obey Julia in saying that the successor will be that. As the ruling emperor, Arvis would in fact have every right to declare how the succession works despite how naturally, the heir would be Julius. After all, Seliph would in fact be the true heir to the throne, but because Arvis became the emperor, it was more declared that Julius was to be the emperor. The fact is, Arvis ended up becoming the puppet ruler with little will.
I think you're misdiagnosing what's going on with them. Here's King Azmur's word to Arvis in ch. 5 “Lord Naga’s lineage through Saint Heim must not be allowed to perish! I want the two of you to bear a son as soon as possible! If the child inherits the power of Naga, he shall be Prince of Grannvale. And once I pass on he’ll become the King of Grannvale. Lord Arvis, until the boy is old enough to rule, you shall be the provisional king. Do raise him well. I hope you understand all of what I’ve told you. (cough.. Ah…ack..)”.
The King's will has him as provisional ruler, his son by all rights is king, Arvis rules in his son's stead and succession is all through Deidre. Just like if Deidre had born only daughters and died and Arvis remarried and had sons, Deidre's daughters would have had priority for succession, probably their husbands. And while Julius doesn't inherit Naga's literal power he does inherit Naga through his mother. Seliph really isn't a legitimate child of Deidre , he's more like a bastard who swooped in and through might took the throne and sort of messed up the holy blood arraignment. Deidre's marriage to Arvis is here only legitimate one. Arvis is a puppet at the end because Julius is nearing his coming of age or has suprassed it and should begin his rule as King/Emperor. Yeah the whole evil cult expedites Arvis getting dead and getting kicked out, but the succession plan laid out by the rightful King Azmur would have had a Naga imbibed Julius inheriting the throne about the time Seliph is ready to fight.
-
1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:
In which case, there could be some changes that is made. Or for example, have Arvis declare the successor will be Julia's husband. That way Julia can marry someone that she personally likes (like how Julius liked Ishtar), marry them, and still keep the power while ruling the land.
Except for Arvis wasn't a cultist, he was just cowed into marrying his sister for the throne and then they made an anti-Christ by accident, but Julius was already his son and his heir so he was basically stuck with him. All of his lines at the end basically tell us Arvis is sorry that Julius is emperor, he wouldn't have gone out of his way to make Julia emperor just because she had Loptsou holy blood. In fact, he may have been able to get rid of her easier by marrying her off far away, nobody would have questioned marrying her to Arion or someone far away.
-
1 minute ago, omegaxis1 said:
Remember that Arvis was still the Emperor, but only in name. Julia would have controlled the land while still being called the princess.
Except she wouldn't have been given the deference or leeway that Julius was given. He's the heir, no matter what and the reason why the loyal members of the empire who aren't dark cultist follows him is because is father is only emperor in name, mostly a regent. Julius, through his mother and his maleness is the one true emperor basically on his birth and his grandfather's death. Julia's not going to be able to boss around dukes, kings, priests, soldiers and the like if she's the the heir, she's an extra at best.
-
8 minutes ago, Jingle Jangle said:
After completing FE4 recently, one of possible idea that I had was that what if Julia has gotten the major Loptyr and Julius has gotten the major Naga? Sort of what King Azmur wanted but Julia wasn't expected. I figured the story of the 2nd gen will go the same way, but Julia would have Ishtar as an underling. Not so sure who would be a romantic interest for this version of Julia.
It complicates Manfloy's plans because he's very dependent on Arvis' and Deidre's son inheriting the throne because the whole male preference for succession so the second half kind of falls apart. But assuming that was the case, I would suspect it would have been in the Manfloy's/dark cult's interest to murder Naga Julius and make it look like an accident so Julia inherits the throne and they get rid of Heim's main blood line too.
-
It just depends. Assuming you live in the US, or any western country, there's probably a governmental organization like the US's OSHA (occupational safety and health administration) where you can report this gross negligence of the law. I know it seems extreme, but this is why these laws exist, to protect people from the stupid decisions their superiors make, not only is it bad to smoke near others because it's bad for their health and rude it's also bad for the building itself and most companies lease the space they work in and I can't imagine the people that own the building want the rank smell of smoke and all the crap they leave in the vents and carpeting. You should be able to do this anomalously and I can't imagine you're the only one in the office who hates the smoke, so who could pin it on you?
Alternatively, if you don't want to inform the authorities, you could always wear a face mask for your 'health'. Flu season is in full swing and people are getting sick all over, if you wear a mask for your 'health' you at least have a excuse for the mask that doesn't have to confront the smokers in your office.
Lastly, you could always talk to your boss. While not threatening to expose the company to the lawsuits they seem to deserve, you can still tell the boss that you have weak respiratory health, asthma definitely applies, and that you would prefer if the word spread around the office that you can't handle the smoke in your face and that if those who smoke would be kind enough not to smoke right in front of you.
-
1 hour ago, Spectraman said:
So basically if you have two males really close to 500 and you screw up by accidently making one of them the father when you wanted the other, than it is your loss.
So is it better to get pairings early(unless you want items from specific events) so you dont scew up your pairings by waiting near high value love point character.
Especially for Ayra, I dont want Claud as a parent and I am really afraid I accidently put them next to each other.
I mean, most pairings that can 'accidentally' happen are okay, besides all the females except the two that show up late have low love bases so you can just have desired pairings stand near each other about 10 turns a chapter and you'll be fine. And there aren't a ton of lover conversations that give items, but there are a couple. Also love points stop accumulating after turn 50 on every chapter too. All-in-all, pairings while fun, aren't the end all be all, most are pretty okay, just decide the ones you want and build towards them and they will happen, really only one pairing is likely to happen accidentally.
-
2 minutes ago, eclipse said:
You'll gain "points" by having units stand next to each other, certain conversations, having healers do their thing, and maybe a thing or two I've forgotten. Get enough points (500) and you get lovers. . .who, in turn, generate kids instead of replacement units.
I don't think using staves gives love points, but you're right about conversations and standing next to each other. The last one is just implicitly, most females naturally gave love points each turn with males even if they aren't adjacent at the end of the turn.
-
9 minutes ago, Spectraman said:
hey guys so I just started Fe 4 and I had a quick question about pairings. I know that you gain love points through many events and units being adjacent, but I want to know if my pairings are solidified immediately after I reach the highest amount of love points, because I am a little confused on how I get to choose my pairings.
For example:
Lets say I want to pair-up Lex and Ayra. Here are the questions I have.
-if they get paired does that mean the only conversation I should get in Chapter 5 is between them? Or can Ayra have another conversation with another male character because she also has the highest number of love points with that person.
-also can you have female characters have max love points with many characters?
Please, I feel like i need someone give me a step by step example of how to correctly pair-up two characters, because I don't want to have substitutes in the 2nd generation because I couldn't correctly pair units.
You don't 'initiate pairings', when a couple gets 500 love points they become lovers, if you're playing the game, look at Cuan's and Ethlyn's character pages and you'll see the line 'lover' and their respective names will be there, that means they are paired. When a couple reaches 500 love points by 'lover' it will say whoever they are paired with.
Yes the ch. 5 lover conversations only occur between people who the game identies as lovers, once a couple reaches 500 points the game stops adding points for other characters, so if Lex and Arya reach 500 they are lovers even if Holyn had 450 love points, it doesn't matter the game will stop counting Arya and Holyn's love points.
That's pretty much it, though the game doesn't allow conversations that create 'love points' like the conversation in ch. 3 between Arya and either Lex or Holyn if that person already has a lover, so that should be kept in mind too.
-
3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:
He's a malignant narcissist and he's been one his entire adult life.
I agree that the president is indeed a narcissist, if you want to give it a mental health diagnosis and call him malignant, go ahead, but I'm loathe to do so, I don't know him and I'm not a doctor. That isn't a disqualifying trait from the presidency, it just makes you a lousy human.
2 hours ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:Basically. Trump has no reason to talk to Mueller and has nothing to gain from it, so why bother? I must admit though, the suggestion that he answer Mueller's questions via written response was amusing to think about.
As for Trump's mental health, I remember there was an article making the rounds a while ago about Congressmen being prescribed Alzheimer's medication, so who knows.
I thought about it and there is a way Mr Mueller can compel the President to talk to him, he could issue a subpoena through a grand jury though that may open a whole new can of worms, but I suspect the president would talk to him in private if a subpoena was issued.
Congresspeople are different, the means by which they are removed is very public. The whole Congress basically has to take up an issue to get rid of the member, so with private things like Alzheimer's disease, Congresspeople are expected to resolve those matters on their own and resign if necessary. The 25th Amendment allows for relative privacy to initiate the means of removing a sitting President.
1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said:well, i think the problem is two-fold
1) they have, but not publicly. there are plenty of private accounts of his advisors complaining about trump, whether it be his lack of attention, lack of understanding, or whatever. plus, he's obviously really stupid. i mean stupid in the sense that he chooses to be uneducated and acts in dangerous ways--he also tends to react rather than be proactive. he may or may not be "smart" iq-wise. not really important to me.(for example, a flat earther is stupid, regardless of actual intellectual merit.) maybe the better word is 'moron.' in any case, trump fits the bill, as if he were the very definition of it.
2) it's possible that the united states could appear weak if trump's closest advisors call him a moron openly? i don't know how much global perception of a world leader actually matters, but in trump's case i'd expect they'd try to minimize it.
I agree that he's ignorant and ill-informed, but old and stupid aren't disqualifying traits for the Presidency. This could have been complained about long before he became President, those traits seemed to attract many Americans to him. I remember lots of people remarking he 'says it like it is', he is who he is.
I'm not actually defending the president as a human or a politician, I'm merely defending the institution of the Presidency from needless speculation, removing the President is an extreme action, it can't be taken lightly and shouldn't be glibly flung about.
The world already thinks he's a moron, there's already egg on our faces, some care, some don't, it is what it is. The world would think no less if his allies started calling him out and if they privately moved to remove him for being incapacitated and failed the Congress would likely be forced to intervene.
-
2 hours ago, Thane said:
What are you guys' thoughts on Trump's mental state? Even if he doesn't suffer from anything, he doesn't seem like a guy who copes well with stress. I don't want to buy into any conspiracy theories, but there is footage of him looking confused and walking in the wrong direction. Maybe I'm just reading too much into that.
Playing armchair psychiatrist is like playing armchair quarterback, really easy to do with no consequences, but not of very much value. The president is an older gentleman who has 'senior' moments, he occasionally loses his train of thought and gaffes and he's basically always said stupid things, that's not new to his old age. While I won't speak highly of all members of the Trump Administration, some (Mr. Kelly, General McMaster, Mr. Tillerson) seem like loyal enough Americans who would speak up if the President was truly mentally deficient so as to be unable to execute the job of the presidency. The 25th Amendment provides a means for the cabinet and the Vice President to oust the president for the such a problem and if a vote was taken or even considered, this administration leaks like a sieve, so everyone would know. Here's the relevant text:
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.[3]
2 hours ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:Changing the topic from Presidential quality for a moment, I saw some stories floating around about the possibility of Mueller interviewing Trump. What does everyone think of that? Personally speaking, there's no way in hell Mueller gets a hold of the Tangerine-in-Chief himself unless there's no way he can get out of it.
Unless the Congress either renews or rewrites the special counsel laws, I don't think there's really any way for Mr. Mueller to compel President Trump to talk to him. Now, if the seat upon which the president rests becomes too hot, then he may have no choice but to talk to Mr Mueller. Right now, I don't see anything that would make President Trump talk to him, so he won't.
-
6 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:
Teapot Dome was Harding, @Zasplach. No president squandered potential as badly as William Henry Harrison, who was so stubborn he died because he didn't wear a coat in the rain. 1 month after he took office.
Yep, there's a 'William Henry Harrison' line of bad, that whole talking at your inauguration for so long in the rain that you catch pneumonia thing and my apologies, Harding is the tea pot dome President Grant had the whiskey ring and the creation of the DOJ. I think the Presidents I mentioned are worse than general Tippecanoe, honestly.
-
41 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:
I thought that if you took away the scandals then old Nixon has some pretty decent achievements under his belt. Wasn't he the one who started normalizing the relation with China?
Tricky Dick also created the EPA, enacted the clean water act and 'ended' the war in Vietnam. It doesn't mean he isn't the only President in the history of the Republic(almost 220 years) to leave the Presidency without dying or ending his term. He literally used the executive branch of the government to break the law and then spent 2 years covering it up; that scandal spirals him into the doldrums. He helped create this culture of cynicism and potential bureaucratic corruption, he filled the executive branch with his cronies and made a mess that took basically the whole 70's to clean up and into the 80's. Besides he helped start off that whole 'stagflation' problem of the 70's. You can say nice things about General Grant's presidency too (I don't call him president because I like the man too much and his presidency was that bad) he adopted the 15th amendment (black suffrage) and ended the KKK, which didn't reappear for almost 40 years, but the Tea Pot Dome scandal and all of the related problems he created with his friends and cronies in the federal government drives down his presidency.
-
5 minutes ago, Phillius the Crestfallen said:
You mean Bush Sr. right? I'm pretty sure Bush Jr. is considered one of the Presidency's biggest disasters, but idk.
Average to below average at worst, people with any historical perspective put Jr way above terrible presidents like Carter, Nixon, Harding, Buchanan, Pierce, Grant etc. President Bush was okay, war in Iraq not withstanding, the war in Afghanistan made lots of sense and was very popular at the time, the expansion of Medicare was a relatively successful program and though he wasn't successful, just like President Obama, he attempted comprehensive immigration reform that could have fixed this mess we are in. The economic downturn was both a result of the deregulation of the Glass-Stegall act, which happened under President Clinton, and the eventual downturn of the economy. His response was measured, just like President Obama's really and saw the expansion of the federal government to fix the problem. His tax bill was wholly political and mildly popular, the middle class tax reforms are still in effect as of today . Bush was okay, not great, but okay.
Nationalism is a wholly populist movement, it could rise and fall with the country's whims. Both political parties have had real stinkers and come swinging back from it; after President Nixon, it didn't look like the GOP could ever win again, he was such an unrepentant disaster and then Reagan happened, the Democrats had disasters like Carter, but Clinton still had two terms. The parties remake themselves to the whims of the voters all the time, only time can tell.
-
Reagan to Bush Sr to Bush Jr, kind of a bit of transitioning for both parties in that time too, ie first time GOP controlled both houses of Congress in '94 in 40 years with Newt's Contract with America too. As a major aside, I think both parties are kind of due for some major restructuring and realignment, it's been a while, but that's neither here nor there.
And this may be an unpopular opinion here, but I don't think President Trump has done anything worthy of impeachment. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that impeachment is a wholly political endeavor, but historically in America it is to remove someone who has either obviously committed a crime or is so unfit for office that the Congress has to act. There is a reason why the Senate has never convicted a president to actually impeach him, not one time. We got extremely close with President Andrew Johnson, but that was when the Radical Republicans in Congress made such a blatantly unconstitutional law that impeaching him would have been an affront that some noticed.
The President has been below average at best and he isn't a good person, his character is clearly lacking, but I've seen no proof from the Muller investigation showing he's committed a major crime, ie something worthy of impeachment and this book from Micheal Wolff does nothing to make me think that the President is mentally unfit, he's not a genius, he probably has average to above average IQ, but he's just an older gentleman who says stupid things. He's like if you gave my crotchety eighty year old grandfather a twitter account, he's say thoughtless things, but despite that, he isn't 'mentally unfit'. Besides, look a little into Mr. Wolff, he's clearly at best a gossip columnist, he's an admitted liar, who down right says he exaggerates for effect and he doesn't even act like a proper journalist with sources and quotes. His book is meant to sell and oh boy it's gonna sell.
I think everyone needs to temper all this talk of impeachment. I know that President Trump has the ethical sense of a pawn scum and that his actions can hurt millions of Americans and that he's unpopular, but, and this is an important but, millions, probably tens of millions, of Americans still support him. If it looks like the majority of Americans (especially the "establishment") are pushing out the President just because they don't like his antics or because they find him unpleasant, there will be hell to pay. It will push those people into a more horrible camp than the Trump one, they actually exist, and the country will be further galvanized. I know this is counter-intuitive, but give the president more rope, as the saying goes, he'll hang himself. He's unethical, he'll do something or he already has, worthy of either impeachment or at least disqualification (don't know what that looks like, but there are several options). Stop calling for his impeachment all the time, treat him like what he is, but cover it with no commentary, eventually the majority of the country will catch on to his heinous antics and unethical behavior. I suspect that 20% of the country will stand with him no matter what, but if 80% are repulsed, the country can heal at least, we have to get there.
In terms of politics, who knows how the GOP will react to all this, reading tea leaves is a waste of time, better to react and think about what is. I'm of the opinion that this election could result in a populist movement in both parties, something that's never really happened in America politics, something I would loathe, but it could just as well result in an anti-populist 'return to normalcy' movement in both parties where we see a reharmonization of the country and an agreement on the basic norms of the country that 65%-75% of Americans can live with. Who knows, it could always get worse? Maybe we have a race to the bottom for the country.
-
5 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:
Then it'll be Prohibition all over again, with local and state authorities warning pharmacies and pot shops about an impending raid.
That only worked in places of extreme corruption like Chicago where gangs (Al Capone) ran the local governments and police forces or bribed them heavily and federal authorities didn't have a true police force, the FBI was created after Prohibition to prevent this sort of thing. If local authorities want to have that sort of gumption (zero chance they will) they can expect to charges of interfering with federal prosecution which is a hefty charge.
-
Just now, Hylian Air Force said:
I can see those states circumventing the DEA by refusing to prosecute anyone arrested by the DEA. If that doesn't work, they could try to defund the DEA in those states.
Can't, it's against federal law to smoke marijuana so they can take them straight to federal courts and the DEA isn't funded in individual states, it's funded through the taxes individuals pay, which the federal government redistributes to different agencies.
-
1 minute ago, Thane said:
Wait, will it be legal and illegal at the same time?
Basically, state authorities work for state governments which only have to cooperate sparingly with the feds, depending on the rules set by state governments, but federal authorities work for the federal government where marijuana is still illegal, so the DEA can enforce those laws in the states.
-
1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:
so much for states rights
i swear donald trump just says a bunch of shit he doesnt understand and his supporters fill in the blanks. legal weed was one of those things i recall
then this happens and some people wonder where we went wrong...
EDIT: our president also said this should be a states issue, so the fact that he's allowing federal overreach on a states issue means that he's lied again lol and people wonder why we don't listen to what he says, because he's always lying
In a mild defense of President Trump, the DOJ does have some Independence from the President, the AG could have have set different priorities in terms of marijuana laws without very much input from him(DJT). This was pretty much going to happen if any Republican won the presidency, that whole supremacy clause thing and the SOUTUS has already ruled on this in the feds favor. It really is bad, in my opinion, for societies to selectively enforce laws, it puts too much power in the hands of those who enforce laws and too little in the hands of the legislature. If people want a change, they should send legislators to Congress to change the law.
States rights don't exist, Governor Wallace and his merry men of idiots killed them, plus the civil war and the Depression too, everyone basically believes in a centralized state with 50 states. Republicans say 'states rights' when they want to shrink the size of the Federal government.
2 minutes ago, Thane said:So what does this mean in practice? I thought Republicans were against this sort of thing, and I thought many states were going ahead and legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana. How fast will this have an impact on that, and will states like California and Colorado be forced to criminalize it again?
It means that the Federal government will enforce marijuana laws in those states, not that states have to do it; states can enforce their own laws as desired (federalism), but the feds will do the same.
-
1 hour ago, Tabby said:
I'll start this off with a message to the mods: If this isn't in the right place, apologies! I couldn't really locate a perfect spot, so I figured since this involved most games the "General" section was a safe bet! ^-^
I have all the games that would probably be a recommendation, so that is already a start. I seem to be having difficulty really starting and committing to a single game though. At first I wanted to play the games chronologically, but since I've been in Archenea (sp?) overload as of late I wanted to play with some new characters. Not that I'm opposed to playing New Mystery if that is the best choice.
I'm pretty open to any title, and as the topic name says: not even Thracia, Xavier, and some guy named Cyrus who I'm supposed to fear make me err from it. Games that are challenging make me want to stay and see it through a lot more, and coupled with Fire Emblems' permadeath feature that makes me care about the characters a lot more on top of that.
That being said, if Sacred Stones - which I know from a second hand experience is the most "watered down" in terms of the older games' difficulty - would be a better choice, that's also fine. I'm not perfect, I may wipe or lose a chapter last minute on an easy setting, but I'm always fine with finding a better strategy. Standalone titles being axed first is also a fine notion.
I'd prefer to save the Tellius games for a bit later, as my "Wii" needs to be gotten up to a more passable speed before I can enjoyably play those two.
Basically, I can't choose! They all seem like fun, interesting titles to me. Like seriously, I'm so glad I picked up Birthright and Awakening, which led to Echoes, then Warriors, and now all of these wonderful gems. It's nice to have that "in love" type of enthusiasm for a whole series again. ^-^
So yeah, any suggestions or opinions on why "X game is the best" are welcome. I want to hear 'em all.
Danke!
You are pretty much equipped to play any of the games, leastwise it seems to me, just jump into them basically. If we're talking about me and the Tellius games aren't available, I would play the Judgral games, Fe4 then Fe5. But basically I would group them, either play Fe4 then Fe5 or play Fe7 then Fe6 then FE8 or play FE11 then FE12, all the games have their different merits. Personally I like to group things in terms of eras, ie SNES, GBA, GC/Wii, then back to handheld, but if you don't want to play FE 3, don't, but I find it enjoyable, but it's pretty old. Judgral games have a different story and different gameplay, but begin to incorporate the weapon triangle and skills, I find them fun, but they aren't for everyone. The GBA games are basic, but fun and varying in difficulty and story and then the Archanea DS games are basic, especially FE11, I've personally never played FE12, but they have have new features like reclassing and skipping the AI's turn.
FE4 (O-sawa Mitsuki) Manga Translation Continued (Chapter 70 up)
in NES and SNES Era
Posted
I'm loathe to speak for everybody, but I'm presumptuous, so I will. Your own mental health is a million, billion, some unimaginable adjective more times important than us having to wait for you guys to do the high quality work you've all done. Anyone with an eye for quality work can see how well this has been orchestrated and anyone with any decency can understand real life happens.
I'll speak personally and say I'm sorry to hear you've had such a difficult go at it and am heartened to hear you are doing better, God-speed in that endeavor and I hope for continued better tidings health-wise.
You guys have done excellent work so far on this project and it's quiet an undertaking, so don't feel rushed, it's just fun to see what you all put out. I know we are all looking forward to future chapters, but patience is a virtue, so we may as well all have it.