Phoenix Wright

I've got two main suggestions that I've been thinking about lately and I'd like to discuss it a bit with staff and members alike. To begin, how do y'all feel about stories jumping immediately to the first (theoretically) "unread" line on the main page? I've never encountered another website that did this, and after months of its implementation, I can say with certainty that it's annoying. It should just start at the beginning when you decide to read the full article. It's annoying mostly because it assumes you read the preview, which is not necessarily true. For any Echoes articles, I just click read more immediately because I already know I'm interested. If I did read the preview, the jump begins precisely after where you left off, which is awkward. It should at least begin on the last sentence/image/line that was visible in the preview to keep the flow of reading. The other thing is a bit minor, but still worth asking about: can we create tabs or something on the main page to filter news? I don't care about Cipher or Heroes, so it'd be nice if I could skip them entirely. We could reserve the "main" news page for announcements of new games (so, when Heroes was first announced, or when Echoes was first announced), website management news, etc. We can put other news in tabs that indicate to a reader when something is new, like the [new!] used around the rest of the site.

the only thing good about trump so far is that it's clear the repub. party isn't just gonna be his bitch, which is refreshing. my opinions on the trump presidency are softer than my opinions on trump, the man. oh dear god do i hate that too

"democrats are to blame" oh fuck off

i don't read it that way. but in any case, this is now semantics; you know what i mean. they're are equally bad, practically speaking, for different reasons (ie, i think they're both equally responsible for impeding progress as a nation). on the question of who is worse in terms of tactics used, etc., repubs take it hands down.

my original comment was made with the intention of sounding more unbiased. at the end of the day, i'm a leftist. of course i feel that republicans are worse--but are they? the examples i gave at least outline that democrats aren't close to perfect. moreover, what you mean by 'equally bad' was never specified. sure the republican party is aggressive, uncompromising, etc. but democrats seem to behave in any and every way possible to enable those actions. there exists not a balance between the parties, but a clear power gap between them. dems' weak-will, shady dealings, and all its other poor traits make for an equally bad, or rather ineffective, party, but not for the same reasons the republicans are a bad party.

nah, i definitely think republicans in power are worse. but the spineless nature of democrats allows for that positive feedback loop. i remember that vox article--very interesting. sad, mostly, however. i don't think the election was rigged, though, i was talking about the whole sanders-clinton business.

they're willing to forego democracy in the name of oligarchic power, despite cries from the rust belt, progressive left, and in between. they are weak-willed (obamacare is a nice example). and, worst of all, politically powerful democrats don't think there's anything wrong. the party blames its own followers for not believing in the platform. now ain't that somethin'?

ok, relax yo. so it turns out, i already know of this fellow. i saw a youtube video where he was surrounded by a number of sjw's and he was trying to discuss the use (rather, why we shouldn't have to use) of non-binary pronouns (zim, zir, etc). he couldn't really get a word in, though it was obvious he was intelligent, coherent, articulate, etc. but you can have these qualities and be wrong. listening to his interview with joe rogan, i still can't agree with him. were i debating with him, i would spend a bit of time to respond...but i'm not. so use your own damn words. you do this all the time. i'm not here to respond to videos you watch. equally as annoying, you come to these "revelations," like when you pointed out you "realized something," which are not your own thoughts, but are a regurgitation of the words someone else said. with or without due credit.

who are the "atheists"? what is the old age of atheists?

what kind of argument is this? liberal news outlets don't deserve to attend a press briefing with the white house now, but the likes of breitbart are ok?

there's no reason money ought to be spent to make a shitty book full of shitty ideas and have the shitty author make a profit off of it. sorry bud, not every idea is worth a book. it would be a very sad day indeed if a flat earth book came out tomorrow and was praised, promoted etc. because we're all about "exploring a viewpoint in detail." it's a waste of very valuable time. violence is not always for that purpose. sometimes it is used in self-defense. or, as mlk put it, "...in the final analysis, riots [a violent activity] are the voice of the unheard." it's more subtle than you make it, i think. that technicality doesn't make sense, nor do the ideas that follow. unless you're a nihilist i guess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_calendar i'm not sure of its accuracy, but it says there's a diff. between certain calendars, so that's why i said it.

uhhhhh 'new atheists'? wtf does that mean? also, that argument doesn't make any sense the gregorian calendar isn't perfect either, since the earth's rotation is slowing over time. perfect enough though. i can't find any sources on the accuracy of the chinese lunar calendar rn, after a quick search, but it's also likely to be 'perfect enough.'

a common issue with translation is that there are some words that simply aren't present. but yeah, this is an example of what i was trying to say. on another note, i'm learning mandarin, and i was wondering if you or others had some solid yt channels or shows or other media (music, etc) that are entertaining/informative/educational? can be canto too i suppose. i'm not yet at a level where i can search this stuff confidently lol. still need to use most of the words in english, which severely limits my searches.

you have to realize the futility in elizabeth ii becoming a monarch, though? is there no other process in your mind? no other way to select a monarch? that's already a presidential power (i remember your personal distinction already).

what is a correct opinion? it's not likely that judges would just throw out old decisions. that doesn't even happen with legislation. legitimate ruler...of the united states?? no, she is not. wait, how would you want the supreme court to be established? you want to establish a government that has the highest chance of being fair, that is democracy, with some checks and balances. not pure democracy (ie, mob rule). indeed, congress certainly should have the ability to say no. we agree on all of these points, i think.

how about no. try again that's already the case! but they're just appointed instead. antonin scalia would have never become a justice were it not for a deeply conservative president's appointment. lbj, jfk, fdr, obama, etc. would have never selected him, regardless of personal merit. judges already sell themselves based off of previous court leanings and decisions. and the people. sorry, definitely laziness on my part. the interpretation of the law is subjective, so law in and of itself is not wholly objective. laws as they are definitely are objective. elected experts are better than appointed ones not based on actual substance, but based on personal political philosophy. i believe democracy is preferable to most other forms of government. i would rather the mob rule than an autocrat or an oligarch. an appointment in my eyes takes power away from the people. some appointments are fine simply because it would be exhausting to vote for everything under the sun, but i can definitely fathom a system where we the people at least help with putting some judges in the highest judicial office there is. i think congress failing to act on obama's nomination is breaking constitutional law--or at least undermining the president in an unprecedented way. it'd be nice if we could intervene. of course, it's happened before, and it was wrong then too, but not for as long as the obama nomination. it can and often will be the case in a two party system. unless your monarch will just be undermining congress constantly? i'm not sure of your last point. indeed, i think all branches of government should be electable in some way. mind you, it's not like i've written political theory before, so this belief is by no means fleshed out. i'm really not sure that a judicial election will absolutely work for the better, but i have an inkling that it will.

let's reset course here: if the united states today became a constitutional monarchy, how is the head of state (be it king, queen, whatever) selected? but a republican president is currently appointing a republican-biased scotus judge-- with a republican congress. scotus is also right-leaning just a bit. electing a representative to interpret the law is fundamentally different than the body of people interpreting the law. and the same goes for the other branches of government. that's a republic. what kind of question is this? loose definition of the word carefully there. but in any case, objective conflicts (law isn't objective btw) should be up to the experts. elected experts, not experts by birthright. and in my ideal world also not by appointment. yeah exec sorry. anyway, they lose power if they disagree, which is fundamentally undemocratic. i can't support something like that. the people do almost as much creating of the laws as they do interpreting them (almost none). and most people also don't enforce the law. you're forming connections that aren't there in order to create a basis for a system of government which is undemocratic and outdated.

you want them to be unelected and decided via family line, right? well, that might as well be divine right. no it isn't. a separation of powers is the separation of the three basic aspects of law and the powers of government: legislation, enforcement (executive), and interpretation (judicial). it's not a bypass if they vote for what they want (which might happen to be what you want as president). if i'm off the mark, please provide more detail. it has unfortunately already been brought down to that level. i'm advocating that people have more of a say. i'm not quite sure how you're interpreting it differently. us absolutely has separation of powers, de jure or de facto. i'm not really sure how a voting body would have more to do with breaking down separation of powers than just letting the electoral branch (also unelected in your ideal world) decide what happens if congress refuses to vote. like, what?? i cannot fathom how you can possibly assert that having 2/3 of government be unelectable is somehow a better balance/separation of power than 3/3 (or 2/3 currently) being electable.

i'm sort of upset you dismissed the idea outright without even asking any questions for how i think it could work. yet you want people to want to live under an unelected, "divine" monarchical ruler. ok. 1. why not, and what is 2. why 3. ok, so 4. they wouldn't be. they'd be electing a representative to do that. 5. exactly! 6. it wouldn't be a standard election. it would more closely resemble what it takes to add an amendment to the constitution (though not exactly). a president could come up with a few appointees. if congress fails to vote (which happened to obama for record time and a handful of other presidents), the people should be involved. congress not voting on the appointed judge from obama was disgraceful, and that sort of thing should be circumvented when possible. 7. you damn right it does 8. examples of what you mean. i'm not advocating mob rule 9. explain what this is supposed to mean

i don't think any big office should be unelected. so scotus should be elected by the people. additionally, gridlock in congress should have some sort of way for the people to be involved.

blah pretty much got it. i mean the cultural aspect that you and blah spoke a little about in terms of language use, in addition to the forcible prohibition of speaking in certain languages (or lesser degrees of the imperial aggressor limiting the use of the native language).

"worst offender," or best example? i'd wager nearly every single language in existence is unintelligible from its 1000 year-old root language, though. languages die because of imperialism mostly, not because of a failure to adapt. chinese would be around today, but perhaps literacy rates wouldn't be so high were it not for the language reforms of the 1940s/50s.

that's fair. again, though, i think he's a bad pick for lots of other reasons. i noted that i think spicer is joking. tbh even if spicer were an idiot, it's so unlikely that he doesn't know what the onion is that he'd had to have been living under a rock for it to be true.

yeah, it's been established that he's reached majority disapproval in record time. he's the most controversial president of my time certainly, and perhaps the most controversial in a long time. his policies are divisive, authoritarian, and plainly stupid. his actions are selfish. he's a megalomaniac. edit: just my $.02 on the sean spicer thing: the tweet was made in jest, but that's irrelevant. whether he's aware of the fact that he lies and is proud of it does not matter. he's still a liar.