Time the Crestfallen
-
Posts
2,786 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Time the Crestfallen
-
-
7 minutes ago, MrSmokestack said:
>Has Skadi
>Lobo is a Quick DPS
:thinking:
Jokes aside, I’m probably picking Muenori, though Parvati also has my attention.
:laughs in having Skadi and Merlin:
-
Came back after a long hiatus, tried to roll for
best daughterAbigail and got Achilles + Nezha instead. Not what I was hoping for, but it'll keep me around a bit longer.Probably gonna ticket Gorgon. I need an Avenger and I'm bias for Medusa as it is.
-
3 hours ago, Res said:
Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats talking of compromise are going to help sink the party; they’ll be steamrollered by Trump, just as he’s promising.
Any Democrat that still wants to reach across the aisle after what's happened the last 10 years are either so stupid they should be nominated for the Darwin Awards or are themselves crypto-fascists that are sympathetic to GOP/Trump's goals. There's literally no other explanation at this point.
-
I'm inclined to agree with Pixelman tbh. Here's how I see this going down:
-Even if the House flipping blue means that the Mueller investigation finds conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with Russia or any number of other things, he won't get impeached. Republican voters will just call it fake news because a 'healthy' diet of Fox News means that they would find it more likely that the entirety of the FBI is compromised by (((The Deep State))) than the idea that a multi-millionaire New York real-estate tycoon could be corrupt and the Republicans will do nothing because they know they can get away with it.
-2020 elections come around and to be frank, I honestly don't believe that Trump will want to run for a second term by virtue of being absolutely miserable as President
By this point, the economic consequences of Trump's policies will start to kick in resulting in either one of two things;
-If another Republican won the presidency, them and Fox News will blame the consequences of Democrat obstructionism and because the Dems are fucking spineless and think that having the moral high-ground is more important than anything, they'll cave in and be 'amicable to compromise' which in reality will just mean they'll let the Republicans pass whatever the fuck they want.
-If a Democrat wins, Republicans and Fox News will somehow spin it so that the Democrats are the direct cause of them (a.la how some people honestly believe that Obama caused the housing crisis) and then use their Senate majority to obstruct any policy that might reverse said consequences, which will be passed off as the Democrats doing nothing to fix the problem leading to a complete electoral washout in the mid-terms.
Cynical? Maybe, but any ability I had to be optimistic about politics died a long time ago.
-
25 minutes ago, Slumber said:
We can stifle the country's bleeding for another 2 years, at least.
We still will need proper treatment in 2020.
Quite. At the very least, there's a lot of investigative things that can be done through the House. Analysts have been talking about subponeas and being able to get a hold Trump's tax returns, which will be amazing.
And watching Paul Ryan lose his job as Speaker will bring me so much personal satisfaction I could use the video/documentation of it as a substitution for porn for the next two years. -
Senate results make me want to put a bullet in my head, but it's great to see that the Democrats are going to get control of the House.
-
1 hour ago, Pixelman said:
As expected, Jair Bolsonaro wins Brazil's presidential election 55.2% to 44.8%
What a time to believe alive
It's stuff like this that makes me want to have another attempt at suicide.Anyway, I know he's a complete tyre-fire in terms of policy but I'm not all that well informed on Brazilian politics, so how much difficulty is he gonna have implementing all of his shit? I'd like to think it won't be easy, but it's kind of hard to be optimistic about this situation.
-
1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
No, you stupid fuck, you're either a "Token Black" because you're taking money to spread conservative propaganda and they want to use you to say "we have blacks on our side!" or you're a useful idiot if you sincerely believe that police brutality is a myth and undermine all the racial profiling that's been going on this year.
A mix of both in my opinion. They legitimately believe the opinions they spread, or at least they believe most of them. Although, they're generally not going to criticise actions on their own side or concede that the left in general is right about some things because that would potentially compromise their grift/Koch brothers funding. I mean last I checked, Jordan Peterson (for example) makes more than $1m per year off of patreon alone, you think he's gonna do anything that might compromise that gravy train?
-
6 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
I think he's just buying in too much into Trump's propaganda and the framing that the #MeToo movement is trying to create a "guilty until proven innocent" environment.
Nah, there's more to it than that. Hysteria surrounding false rape accusations has been a thing in the Red Pill and MRA circles of the internet way before Trump or #MeToo got started. I should know, because I (though I loath to admit it) bought into some of it when I going through my 'Enlightened Centrist®' phase.
-
2 minutes ago, FrostyFireMage said:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-new-home/201810/rape-allegations
"Even strong advocates for rape victims admit that false accusations sometimes occur. The real debate is regarding the frequency of these false claims. Some suggest that only 2% of rape accusations are false (a rate that is similar to that of non-sex offenses), while others state that the rate is higher (e.g., 8%). According to a few sources, the rate is significantly higher (e.g., 40%)."
Your source points out that part of the reason for higher percentages is people confusing retractions and unfounded allegations as false, and then literally goes on to conclude that false allegations are a very small percentage of rape claims my dude. Did you even read the article, or did you just look for the one paragraph that seemed like it agreed with your view on the matter?
-
5 minutes ago, FrostyFireMage said:
I hate how with crimes like this you either have to deal with the possibility of an innocent man's life and reputation being destroyed or an innocent woman not receiving justice for the trauma she received
It's already been mentioned that the number of false accusations is literally only around 2% mate. These problems are not remotely comparable in terms of frequency or scale.
-
10 minutes ago, Slumber said:
You know they'd be blaming the democrats if they had control of a single portion of the government.
Though to be fair, it's midterms. You'd struggle to find anyone who'd be willing to admit fault during midterms.
Well as we can clearly see, they blame the Democrats even when they control every branch of the government. It's like they forgot they're not the opposition party or something.
-
"It’s disappointing, but it’s not a Republican problem," McConnell said of the deficit, which grew 17 percent to $779 billion in fiscal year 2018. McConnell explained to Bloomberg that "it’s a bipartisan problem."
I felt a blood vessel in my eye burst reading this one.
-
15 minutes ago, FrostyFireMage said:
If people never believe women or stand up for them why does the Duluth model exist?
Comparing societal approaches to rape and domestic violence is comparing apples and oranges mate, never-mind the fact that the Duluth model receives it's fair share of criticism.
-
8 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
Yeah I was just mentioning some of the arguments I've seen for the lifetime appointment. When it comes to the Supreme Court I'm currently undecided between term limits in it or just flat out abolishing it because the notion of having a court of impartial judges being the interpreters of the law without applying their bias and political ideology into their decision is as flawed as us humans. The tricky part is where do you relegate their power to?
To be frank, the fact that the Nuclear Option is even a thing seems absolutely fucking ridiculous to me, and if obstructionism is such a big problem that people feel like it's necessary than hey, us Australians have a procedure called a double dissolution that you guys might be interested in.
-
1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
Because of how Article 3, Section 1 of the constitution is interpreted:
People who argue FOR lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court say that the underlined implies they can hold office indefinitely so long as they're not impeached. They also argue that the lifetime appointment is for job security so they can make their decisions free from public or political pressures and the last bit about compensation suggesting that they should be safe even if they make unpopular decisions.
I dunno, I just don't see why it can't be amended so that there's a mandatory retirement age. Also, whilst I assume you're just mentioning it and don't actually believe it, the argument that job security means that they're free from outside interest is complete horseshit and is demonstrably false in every instance where it's used.
-
With all this having happened, I honestly don't understand why Judges have a lifetime appointment in the United States. Someone explain this to me, it seems like such a stupid fucking rule.
-
23 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
Remember boys and girls: A new precedent where it's ok to lie under oath has been established... by the Republicans and Collins' speech.
Only if you're a Republican though. Everyone else has to play nice and be a proper bipartisan though, because otherwise it's not fair /s.
-
I love the part in Collin's speech where she says that Kavanaugh, a man who went on a screed about how the accusations of sexual assault are "revenge on behalf of the Clintons", is going to 'bridge the political divide' on the Supreme Court.
At the very least, this more or less destroys the myth of the 'moderate Republican'. They're all equally as shitty in terms of politics, it's just that some of them will at least pretend they care about civility and partisanship.
-
1 hour ago, XRay said:
We have to start from somewhere to rebuild our standard. The least we can do is to point out how necessary it is to have civility.
Not if it comes at the cost of completely ignoring all negative impacts of his actions, which loops around to my point, which is why is it that 'civility' should excuse his past actions?
1 hour ago, XRay said:Well, I would at least give him an E for effort instead of an outright F though. He is at least doing something right to be able to serve for so long. He might not be doing much good in our view, but in the eyes of his party and voters, he did a lot to make America great.
1) 'E for Effort' is not even close to good enough in a career were one's decisions will have an impact on the lives of hundreds of millions of people (and that's only domestic). I refuse to lower my standards that far.
2) In order to serve for that long, he needs to be 'doing something right' in the eyes of the Republican base, and the endorsement of the Republican base is one of the biggest red flags a politician can get in my eyes.
1 hour ago, XRay said:Is he great politician in terms of making America prosperous and great though? I agree with you that he most likely is not, but that does not mean we should not celebrate the positives he brought to the table. At the very least, his death brought a moment of unity and empathy, and I think that is good for America.
I'm not going to contest you on those other things, because whether or not he's an arsehole on a personnal level is irrelevant (although I would argue that he is), because as a POLITICIAN, whether or not his actions bettered the country is the only thing that matters, and in that regard he IS an outright F. Celebrating the positives he brought to the table (few as they are) means nothing if we cannot look at or discuss the overwhelming negatives.
And as a last note, I'm not exactly celebrating his death and I am no stranger to reading obituaries with great pleasure for what it's worth, but the fact that McCain's death can inspire unity speaks more to how fucked up your political scene is than anything else personnally speaking.
1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:From my perspective, at least, the majority sets the standards. Civility is not the bare minimum anymore, and that's just a fact. It is something to be praised in this political climate because of how rare it is. Standards have evolved.
There's a big difference between what IS and what SHOULD be, which is what I said. Yes, civility is very obviously not a bare minimum anymore, but is that something you're expecting me to just accept and be fine with?
52 minutes ago, eclipse said:What I don't like is that it's called "something from a bygone era" (or crap to that effect), implying that it can't be possible now.
Realistically speaking, it wasn't even a thing in these supposedly bygone eras.
-
11 hours ago, XRay said:
It is a little late reply, but I think civility helps and it is something that people often overlook. People skills matter.
The point wasn't that civility is a bad thing, but rather that it's not something that should be praised. Being civil in the political world is something that should be a bare minimum, and the fact that McCain is praised for it isn't a point in his favour for me, it's a demonstration that we've allowed our standards for what is and is not acceptable behaviour for a politician to fall so far that a bare minimum qualification is treated as something to exalted for.
11 hours ago, XRay said:While results do matter, how McCain went about those results should matter as well. I disagree with his policies, but I would not doubt his commitment to the betterment of this country.
To which I respond to with that old saying about good intentions. To be frank, I don't give a fuck if McCain thought his actions would better his country, because the fact of the matter is that the majority of his actions in the senate have contributed to worsening the lives of most of said country's citizens, either out of bigotry or for the benefit of his party's corporate overlords.
All his platitudes and lip-service towards 'civility' mean nothing if the end-result makes him no better than the average GOP politician other than that he manages not to froth at the mouth whilst spewing his bullshit.
11 hours ago, XRay said:For example, while I abhor spanking children and I think that is unacceptable, I do not think parents who spank their kids are evil and they are doing it in the best of intentions. Spanking is a bad act, but that does not mean a person who spanks is necessarily bad.
A perfect example that the act of spanking a child despite all the evidence indicating that it is a harmful act without benefit requires either a monumental level of willful ignorance or an outright malicious disregard for what is actually beneficial in favour of discredited methods.
11 hours ago, XRay said:I also do not think we were white washing him. He did not need to maintain his civility to succeed as a politician, so the least we can do is to return the favor and be civil with him.
His legacy is that of warmongering, bigotry, and crony-capitalism, and all the media wants to do is talk him up as if he's the second coming of Jesus Christ himself and when you point out how his actions do not in any way line up with that portrayal, they give you shit for being a partisan hack and not being respectful because apparently being dead makes a person exempt from all criticism. I won't tolerate it in regards to Reagan or Bush Jr., and I won't tolerate it in regards to McCain either.
-
19 hours ago, Phoenix Wright said:
that isn't the point. the point is they're uneducated and likely know very little about mccain's voting record. therefore, their opinions are ignorable. because they should like him, overall.
This is my hang up; in terms of a politician's career, the only thing that matters in the end is that person's political views, actions, and voting record, and McCain's views/actions/voting record (amongst other things) paints an overall extremely dire picture, the whitewashing of which demonstrates to me that this fetishism for 'civility' in political discourse is getting extremely out of hand, especially in regards to people like McCain who are at best, only slightly better than typical GOP politicians in regards to policy yet get a pass because they weren't rude whilst saying/doing it.
-
I found this one much harder than Grima's simply because wall positioning meant that it was much easier to get stuck in an unwinnable position where no matter what move you make you're gonna lose a unit. Special mention goes to that Panic Ploy 70 HP healer.
That being said, I still beat Abyssal with Reinhardt, Veronica, A!Tiki, and Lene, so now I get to do this.
Spoiler
This mark of shame isn't ever coming off.
-
6 hours ago, Lord Raven said:
Basically there's a bunch of wasteful spending to either continue old projects and maintaining old equipment, which gets more expensive to maintain as time goes on.
I suppose this is the main problem; not necessarily the amount of spending (especially relative to GDP%), but the sheer amount of waste that occurs. Makes me remeber in February how there was an audit of the military that revealed somewhere in the region of $800 million had 'gone missing'.
General US Politics
in Serious Discussion
Posted
This one comes to mind. The whole article is worth a read, but here's the key section:
She added: “Since 2010, the NC GOP has systematically engaged in a dangerous partisan political agenda, making it harder for people to vote, changing the nature of the State Board of Elections and stripping an incoming Democratic governor of power.
“That’s not what democracy looks like – and North Carolinians deserve better.”
Following Mr McCrory’s election loss, he signed into law two bills that would greatly strip power from the incoming Democratic governor.
The new House Bill 17 cut the number of people Mr Cooper can appoint to Cabinet positions, and requiring approval from the Republican-controlled Senate. He also signed Senate Bill 4, increasing the state elections board from five to eight officials – with four to be chosen by the governor and four by the Senate.