Lord Raven
-
Posts
9,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Lord Raven
-
-
1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
@Lord Raven I think you're underestimating how much of a cult a large portion of Trump base has been. They do not pay attention to anything other than how people talk about Trump and amusingly, the quickest way to see how bad they can be is to look for anyone on Fox News that isn't tooting Trump's horn. I've already brought up Shep Smith in the past who's getting a ton of hate from the Fox News base because he isn't Hannity but now you've got Neil Cavuto's coverage of the Treason Summit as another example and it's pretty damn sad to see that the people on Fox News that are actually trying to be actual news and come back to reality are so brazenly attacked by their own viewers.
They don't seem to have interest in substance, it's just "Do you respect the president or not?" It doesn't seem wise to think they'll come to their senses while Trump remains, sinking him is more likely.
Who is "they"? Trump supporters? The 40%? Are you saying the 40% are all Trump supporters? What if they're just sheltered conservatives/liberals/moderates who are already decently off? Part of approval ratings also reflect how people are doing in the now.
The Trump-Putin summit is actually receiving relatively more backlash than before. I also don't conflate trump supporters with Hannity.
I mean, I really hate to be the one to ask this, but have you actually lived in a rural town before? I mean, I fucking hated it, but I've seen first-hand and second-hand what kind of shit happens there and it's a result of the world moving far too fast for relatively isolated parts of the US. Calling them deplorable or beyond saving or constantly railing on them like you do in this thread will only entrench people and make them defensive.
And for instance, you have trends like Arizona turning gradually purple to blue... because there are more jobs (especially in tech) to bridge remote areas of the country to the main cities. I can see a lot of areas with cheaper housing following suit. I mean, you're not going to get any sort of intellectual debate from 99% of people regardless of how smart they are, so all some people have to debate from is not experience with other cultures (which, yes, in a rural town does not happen often and people don't feel the need to do it because to them, their town is diverse too, just in a different way -- I'm not saying this ironically, for the record).
I'm not a moral relativist or something, but I do see a lot of racism as a result of fear of a lot of things, and the racism that entails is very shallow in the end. For the most part. I don't think voting for Trump is logical, but I also think rural towns don't think losing their job and their town going to shit is logical either, for a variety of reasons.
29 minutes ago, Captain Karnage said:Then you two should really check out r/The_Donald.
I don't know what point you're trying to make but that subreddit is definitely not representative of the average person that supports Trump. I'm fairly confident that half of that subreddit is driven by Russians.
-
1 hour ago, Shoblongoo said:
The hardest part of the Trump presidency has been coming to the inescapable realization that ~40% of the country would in fact vote for the orange shitgibbon if he literally shot someone on 5th Avenue.
And are fully prepared to accept any falsehood, atrocity, or disassembly of our institutions and values as an advancement of American patriotism and greatness because--well--Dear Leader says so...I would wait for the economy to actually tank or go down before we make the 40% conclusion. Especially since people will get their tax returns and see how much less money they got from their returns, or we could wait on health insurance to spike too. And don't forget tariffs which make consumer goods hella expensive over time.
If the economy plummets in the next year then I guarantee we will see a 30% or lower approval rating. I don't think it's a dear leader thing when only 25% of the electorate voted him in and probably like 50% of that 25% did it along party lines and because they hate Hillary Clinton while being conservative or being pro-Bernie. I'm definitely not convinced that the 40% approval rating is a floor because the worst Trump has done aside from the tax bill is just talk.
It's pretty much part of the Russian propaganda to keep placing blame on "others" in the country, no matter which "side" you're actually on.
-
3 hours ago, XRay said:
I am fine with the government taxing addictive substances heavily since those substances are a stress on our health care system. Big warning labels and scary pictures are fine too. But anything more intrusive than that, I am a bit hesitant at supporting.
Yeah, that's actually part of regulation. It's to help prevent exploitation, especially given that tobacco companies have and continue to lie and cover up the link to lung cancer. In many cases, there are things that were known that were intentionally covered up by companies. The government won't regulate usage at all.
What you are suggesting is still miles off from what Pence was suggesting. Pence doesn't believe in exactly that, he believes in much more of a free-for-all on both sides as opposed to just the consumer side. He actually missed the forest for the trees with his "smoking doesn't kill" point* to explain his stance on deregulation, and conflated deregulating the tobacco industry with regulating people's tobacco usage or something to that effect. And the latter is not what is happening at all, because that would be stricken down by SCOTUS almost immediately.
* because, in all honesty, of course smoking doesn't literally kill, but it does vastly increase risk of cancer and mess up your body, and cancer has a good chance of causing death or at best massively destroying a lot of the things you enjoy in life... like come on Pence can you take anything more literally?
-
On 7/17/2018 at 6:08 PM, XRay said:
Personally, I am sort of with Pence on this issue. I am not a fan of the government intruding into social matters. ID requirement to purchase, high sales tax, and big warning labels are enough in my opinion. Oh, and environmental protection laws too, but that applies to every industry.
I do not want the government to tell me what I can or cannot shove up my ass or what I can or cannot smoke.
I agree in theory, but keep in mind that a lot of industries use basically dependence and a sort of feedback loop to continue to sell their products. It's very exploitative.
However, a lot of regulation wrt cigarettes are to give less of an incentive to buy. They don't make smoking illegal. Instead they tax agencies on the grounds that they basically sell something that is effectively poisonous in large doses. Look up a lot of European/Australian rolling tobacco bags and cigarette boxes compared to the US. They are actually actively repulsive and not exactly something i'd want to keep anywhere but stashed away with my weed.
That's why I said blindly against regulations. I'm against blind regulation just as I am against blind deregulation. I believe that many times, information is not available when released and many agencies may consider it safe until more research comes out. Do you think if we knew everything about cigarettes before it was invented, it would actually be sold? Furthermore, if cigarettes weren't physically addictive (which they absolutely are), then do you think there would be a need for regulation?
Regulation is and should be about needs, end-goals, and keeping the populace safe from exploitative practices. Tobacco companies are very exploitative.
-
19 minutes ago, XRay said:
I think you might be misquoting him. Here is what I found on Snopes. While Pence is bad, I do not like to make people look worse than they are.
Oh, cool. He's basically blindly anti-regulation.
QuoteGovernment big enough to protect us from our own stubborn wills.
In 2000, he didn't seem to care about addiction and exploitation. But I'm not arguing with Mike Pence
15 minutes ago, Edgelord said:Yeah, I know the latter is pretty much the target for corporate corruption lobbying deals and the former is just Trump being fucking weird, but there is some which may have corporate connotations, like the fact that he thought (or still thinks?) that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese (or just a hoax in general, which he has stated several times)
If I'm being real, I don't think Trump cares about anything and he'll just say shit like that just to rile people up. I actually don't think it really matters what Trump actually believes or doesn't believe and I think that all he cares about is attention and branding, with an added touch of Putin stepping on his balls daily.
It's better, in a lot of ways, than someone like Pence in the now. Trump has actually damaged IR beyond belief for more reasons than one, and at this point there's not much Pence could do to really make it better or worse (the dude has the personality of a flaccid penis) but Pence is definitely more disastrous for domestic politics.
Granted, to a certain extent I don't think Roe v Wade or Obergefell v Hodges will ever be removed. They will lose far too many votes, either from people who are pro-life or people who want more done. I think we will see significantly more gay discrimination and racial discrimination under Pence, though, because in all honesty gay marriage is such a meaningless issue -- actual discriminatory policies towards members of the LGBT+ community is an issue that the Republican Party actively wants to push.
Though, once people realize that they're being fucked up the ass because of their obsession with abortion and gay marriages, then they'll be voted out -- and it won't take long until they lose their job for a dumb reason and their medicare is gone. Remove abortion from your platform and remove gay marriage as things that have been struck down by SCOTUS, and what do we have? A 20,000 dollar medical debt because as it turns out, people get sick and people break their limbs all the time.
-
2 minutes ago, Edgelord said:
the Donald thinks we are all full of finite energy like a battery and exercise consumes this.
That is, at the least charitable interpretation is idiocy and at the most charitable interpretation is "he's not willing to learn how it works but whatever." I'd rather someone think that than be in, what may well be a target of tobacco lobbies.
-
1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
Also finding this moot. If Trump isn't already disdainful of science the Republicans could easily sway him to do anything against it with little to no trouble. He's proven to be a willing puppet of anything that'll put cash in his pockets and appeal to the hate from his base.
Pence is next level. He doesn't think smoking is linked to cancer.
-
(this forum software bugs me, man, what even is the character limit? is it just a line limit?)
As for #11, it seemed so minor but it also seems very specific to this administration. Executive departments and things change quite a bit between administrations so it just seems unnecessary, especially since in any other administration it would happen. I'd rather someone run an entire executive branch well ahead of an election (because seriously, our elections are 2 fucking years long and we know the nominee for like 6 months, so take those 6 months to get the whole executive branch on the ballot by October of an election year) than something like that, so we can at least see a history of competence. It's pretty clear that Senate confirmation hearings get to be bullshit in the bipolar state.
2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:Limited to last point. For all the shit we give Obama on not having done enough, the state of the government's policies is better off where he left it as opposed to where it'll be when Trump is impeached. The idea is that if by some miracle we end up with another Trump, Nixon or any Shmuck trying to move us in reverse when it comes to human rights, reversing the policies and executive orders enacted by that asshole shouldn't take up too much time during the presidential term of someone actually intending to move the country forward.
But you can't reset a political state. It really doesn't fix anything, and in fact looking at history if there's total democratic control and hell even republican defectors once the Trump tumor is removed, it can easily be made significantly better later on. On top of that, reversal of policy won't fix anyone's issues, especially since I don't see someone's approval rating being above 50% anywhere in the near future. We still have a 40% floor for Trump, so do you honestly think that constantly rebooting the Obama presidency will fix anything? Especially if, say, the ACA causes some major issues 10 years down the line that they didn't expect?
If an institution is broken, then we need to rebuild it better so it doesn't break again, not restore the old one and create a small update. It may not have even been worth restoring the old one in the first place, and to get it implemented. It also does not make sense, because there are major bills that have partisan votes and then there are many other bills that don't which generally are not bad. Furthermore, it still doesn't address the divide; people voted against and disapproved of Obama's policies and they basically become more entrenched as a result because they'll have to live through it again for a few years.
It's definitely a lose-lose for democracy overall to get to a restore point. Finally, we can't logistically get a vote on approval rating for every American and approval rating polls are snapshots in time. It also creates just another election -- if you want an accurate one after all -- and that's more voter suppression! Imagine how bad it would be to re-implement policies that may literally not be adjusted for current technology or social settings, on top of all that. And what if -- and again, these are edge cases but there are more than enough edge cases for this being a bad idea -- Congress had a 2/3 majority in all of the bills it passed so it was basically veto proof by the president. And the president has a 30% approval rating because he's Nixon's head in Futurama. Do we undo all of that, too?
2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:Yeah it is tricky. On paper de-regulation sounds appealing but I simply don't trust corporations. Ultimately though, the people need to have more chances to make an impact on something as opposed to JUST the presidential election and the midterms. We're all expecting to see Trump impeached some time after the mid-terms but we don't know for sure if it's happening, when it is happening and the damage done by Trump should've been stopped earlier this year. It is just ridiculous.
It's not about de-regulation. I do believe government has to regulate businesses, but I also don't believe that the federal government should be micro-managing the states unless issues become dire (which amounts to Supreme Court cases getting stricken down). Federal regulations are for law that's common to all states as well as corporations, but regulations in general make more sense to be local regulations.
Regardless, people have plenty of chances. Phone your senator, phone your local representative, run for local office or join your local political party or movement or something to that extent. Progress is incremental and there are growing pains when progress moves faster than our slowest mass of people allow it. But as it stands, some of the laws you're putting forth are not addressing the root cause of division, which in my opinion is a result of groups being vindictive towards a group that they don't necessarily interact with. In all honesty, that's the way things will go; people in the baby boomers are on their way out and Gen X and the Millennial generations will be in charge. Who knows, maybe both of them will have much more empathy with how much different life was than our parents promised us.
You realize that millennial voters carried like 40 or so states for Hillary Clinton, right?
I'll be voting democrat no matter what in the fall because I believe the Republican Party is severely compromised and actively brainwashing a base rather than upholding democracy. The Democratic Party kinda sucks but I'd rather they be kinda incompetent than someone who, I actually fear, will not step down if he loses an election and will trigger one of the greatest constitutional crises in the country's history.
-
2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
It's a tricky one no doubt but its implementation would require experts on journalism to chime in. I didn't go into too much detail on these and mostly just outline what the goal would be. Ideally, this wouldn't be necessary if improvements to the education system do indeed result in a world where we don't have morons taking Alex Jones' words seriously Fox News propaganda as actual news while suggesting that news they don't like are fake news. Either I think the whole fake news issue needs to be addressed because it IS an issue that is dividing the country.
Forcing media to be nonprofit is one way to go about it.
2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:I'm interested to know your points on #4. As for #11, again, I don't go into much detail and just throw it out there to outline what the goal is but to be more specific, it's basically to remove people like Scott Pruitt more quickly, specially heads of a department that just don't do jack shit or attempt to change something in place without evidence when there IS evidence that put things into place.
On #4? Oh man...
4. All men are created equal act: Regulations seeking to discourage wage gaps due to trivial factors such as gender and ethnicity. Lynching becomes a federal crime. Participation in supremacist groups of any sortremoves right to run for any position of power within any form of government in the country. Increased penalties for hate crimes or just cases where racism is blatantly obvious.
This is very illiberal. If someone joins a supremacy group and deeply regrets it upon learning more -- that person can make a good candidate. Someone joining a supremacy group will only be voted upon in this currently partisan voting pattern we're seeing across the country. And the solution, here, addresses the result of the problem and not the root of the problem, and placing it into law only encourages further divide.
Having that said, there are more than just white supremacy groups, and can you imagine BLM being called a black supremacy group by Donald Trump and barring literally every single person in there from office? And you know the Republicans and the VP will go with him when he wants that. This will most likely be some sort of weird executive privilege -- to place certain "supremacy" groups on the watch. Then what? You get protest groups labeled as supremacy groups and you're fucked.
I know you're not arguing the details but I'm looking at the concept you're trying to ban. And you can't just cite current supremacy groups because more will follow, and eventually you get a smooth talking supremacist -- who keeps his supremacy on the DL -- and part of a group that's like BLM for white people and bam he still runs for the Republican Party because they'll be able to adapt and exploit a loophole.
Much of your post is also centered around the idea of punishment versus rehabilitation. I'm all for prison reform, and I'm all for rehab programs instead of enhancing our private prison system with more punishment, and basically continuing its own form of slave labor and prison guard brutality. It's a hard solution, but a lot of our current problems can get on their way out as the generations progress.It should be shameful to be a supremacist, but not in the sense that we isolate a supremacist -- they or their children aren't that far gone and many are just ignorant. I can offer more perspective on that later. But while it should be shameful to be a supremacist, it's pretty easy to forget that some people just don't know any better about the "right thing," and that people are in supremacy groups because it sounds appealing. Some of your wanted laws just seem spiteful.
-
18 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
1. #FauxNews act: Regulation created in an effort to prevent propaganda from being presented as a reputable news source, to prove compliance, annual proof must be provided. Non-compliant shows must provide a disclaimer (ADA compliant) demonstrating its status as entertainment or simply not an actual news source. The disclaimer must be shown at the beginning of the program and upon return from commercial breaks. Failure to comply can lead to termination of non-compliant show/outlet.
Who's doing the regulation here? Because this can go down some really awful path. It's basically Government-approved media. The main issue is that media chases the money. Rupert Murdoch funds left and right wing sources, for instance. Many times, the information is correct (this is literally just taking shots at fox news), but CNN and etc are sensationalist media. That means that a lot has to be done to take away the profiteering power of news media. We already have laws in place that force Fox News to acknowledge that it only does like a half hour of news reporting a day, so even with a disclaimer it won't do much but unnecessarily put the government into free speech. The only actual way is to make new laws based on corporations and limiting their power.
I'm also going to point out that #4 is abuseable, #6 is not how polls/approval rating works, and #11 is a very strange one because some officials may refuse to do their jobs out of protest either way.
More on #6: a "restore" point requires significantly more work and legislation doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's basically a reset button that really doesn't work, and if a bunch of issues came from a war that happened, then how will resetting to the last 51% state fix things? Furthermore, approval ratings are often calculated independently with different polls having different biases, and the only website that seems to weigh things based on reliability is 538, and I wouldn't exactly want a company or website's ownership to determine the state of our country. Especially since 51% is a snapshot in time, and it has uncertainty/deviation/etc to keep it. The idea is better if you went to 60%, but it still ignores how hard it is to restore and re-enforce old laws. Besides, FDR had Japanese people in internment camps and had definitely a >51% approval rating when he died, and if Truman ended up with like 30% approval rating would we really want that?
Otherwise, ideally I would restrict strictly corporations and federal government, placing more emphasis and importance in local and state-wide governments as built into our government. With the federal government resource allocation, defense, foreign affairs, resolving abuses of the law by the state government, and any nationwide issues that are common between states. That's just a system though.
I tend to think of restrictions caused by the government in the context of "do I trust someone like Trump with this law?" thanks to this election. It's easier to take these things in good faith when you have someone like Obama as president, but Nixon or Trump? Fuck that. I don't trust the government to act in good faith, only to be re-elected.
-
2 hours ago, Navv said:
Thoughts about affirmative action repeal? Mixed feelings about this one.
Pretty dumb move. It's a sticky tape solution to a very very complicated problem, so I'm not sure if it will do that much good or bad in the long run unless we actually fix the issue that lead to affirmative action's passing... which AA definitely didn't do.
Also, there's definitely some antisemitism in that comment section.
-
Ted Cruz seems like the kinda guy who can vote or say whatever he wants because most of the GOP hates him anyway... he just seems to align conservative with everything
-
1 hour ago, Captain Karnage said:
Are you saying that some peoples lives are worth less than others?
Those in power, by virtue of our system of democracy, are indeed worth less than the civilians they're meant to serve.
If they elect to serve themselves rather than those they represent, then will be easily replaced, one way or another.
-
I agree to some extent that calling someone a brainwashed fox news viewer and some of the name calling is pretty bad. I do believe that calling Republican politicians fuckers is not out of the question, however.
I really have a lot of issues with how we address more or less the white rural voting class. I have my own views towards them that I keep highly private partially because of the circumstances I grew up (rural/suburban white Bel Air, Maryland) and because it's inherently divisive and not at all conducive to moving forward. I've evolved my views highly just because everyone has a struggle and blame is easy -- I see everyone blaming everyone else for their problems constantly, and it prevents them from taking the proper action necessary to help themselves out of their situations. As far as I view it, we're all citizens of the world and we all need to pull each other up because that's what leads to longterm prosperity. I have fully detached myself from right wing/left wing/conservative/liberal/democrat/republican/whatever finger pointing terms.
But when it's been shown repeatedly that Russian oligarchs have been funding things like the NRA and other organizations that donate exclusively to Republican candidates, when there were two SCOTUS openings in Trump's tenure (and a possible third), and when the POTUS legitimately flip flops and himself is compromised and is unwilling to prop up the rest of the world and feed his base fear mongering lies, you realize that we are not in a normal situation. This isn't either Bush or Reagan. This is like watching Nixon happen in a heavily polarized society, which is polarized because of the media business model.
It's a very small part of this interview (and I won't link that particular bit -- it's an interesting interview, though it's around 2 minutes in) but Bob Costas even mentions this divisiveness as a business model in many cases. And I also bring this to attention because Republican politicians -- ie, Donald Trump -- have brought attention to such a minor issue that causes a huge divide and actively cost multiple players (Eric Reid, Colin Kaepernick) their jobs despite their talent and willingness to play, and owners stating they've caved to pressure from the president.
The president is not at all a good person. Anyone who believes he is a good person has been lied to repeatedly. Anyone who believes he's fighting to maintain conservatism doesn't really know what they're talking about. Trump is dividing us, trying to destroy our relationships with other countries and actively continues to go back on his word and blame other people. I absolutely fucking hated George W Bush from the moment he was elected when I was 8, but at the very least he stood for many of the norms that keep our country stable. Donald Trump and the current form of the Republican Party stand for no such thing and continue to feed lies. This is not a partisan issue at all -- and I would argue, not many issues are truly "partisan" so much as the issues are used to keep their base voting for them.
The language is strong, it could be a little bit easier towards people who believe in Trump and conservatism, but many of these norms are important so as to keep the country stable and in good standing with the world. However, it should be noted that what these politicians are doing are 100% fundamentally not okay. People do not listen to their constituents and instead vote in favor of corporations. Nobody in Congress is willing to listen to anyone who shares their mark -- and neither are constituents. Calling these actions out and calling out the hypocrisy is necessary to a certain extent, and while I agree alienating people is going to further entrench them, at the same time many of the points I saw did not hold up to scrutiny nor was the scrutiny addressed in a meaningful fashion.
It's also acting out against people in this thread who have advocated for genocide against Syria (that user has learned), calling us all globalists and saying something about "ivory tower academics." People have justified the pussy tape. Someone in here actually said that the Pulse night club shooting made him resent and fear all brown people and instead of listening to the scrutiny -- that not only is it inherently racist but it divides people which further causes these kinds of issues -- leave instead of address it head on. Another thread actually had a guy bring up shootings as a government conspiracy and how Obama was the worst president ever to give the country to the Muslims, and he was not very willing to listen to scrutiny either. I don't blame people for speaking with such strong language when things like that are said around this forum. It's an absolutely mind boggling lack of empathy and and abundance of generalizations.
And finally, Republican politicians are pretty much attempting the kind of tyrannical actions that we saw through history that ended up poorly for all people. This is not partisan.
-
10 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:
If you really want to make an impact on the next election you need to convince the working class to vote on your side. Just a word of advice, if you tell them that this person is bad for supporting policies x, y, and z, and they support x and z your indirectly telling them their a bad person.
I somewhat agree with this, but if I'm saying that x, y, and z are bad things to support, it should not be on me if someone is offended by it. Because I've run into this issue many times; people conflating their sense of self and self-worth with politics, and me saying that an idea or policy is bad being equivocated to me saying that someone is bad for supporting it.
Anyway, that shooting happened like ~15 miles from me? Ugh. Apparently Milo Yiannopoulos said something incendiary about reporters being the enemy of the people. This whole "enemy of the people" thing is wholly unproductive no matter what it actually is.
In other news, Ben Jealous won the Democratic nomination for the Maryland Governor race, and while he's not the best policy guy... he appears to be an extremely genuinely kind person which is refreshing. @Edgelord you may end up being a fan of him to a certain extent.
-
7 hours ago, Edgelord said:
Not necessarily opposed to this if it's made obvious that this is one of the aspects that you take on when you decide to serve the public.
It basically is at this point. There's a Seth Rogen interview out there where he details how he basically told Paul Ryan to fuck off when Paul Ryan asked for a picture.
-
I would say that it is better that government officials shouldn't be a protected class, but political viewpoints are. However, if someone makes or causes trouble (independent of their politics) then they should be taken off the property.
I mainly say this because that would allows citizens to protest against government officials but not against civilians.
-
3 hours ago, Captain Karnage said:
what makes my sources less reliable than yours
didn't Time magazine lie in their latest magazine
didn't CNN blackmail a guy over a meme he made that Trump tweeted out
There's a difference between owning up to being wrong and what Fox News does. Fox News has been a cancer on our TVs for years, and the proof for this is actually indisputable.
CNN's issue is not the fact that they lie, it's the fact that they are in the business of sensationalism. Time's the same issue to a lesser extent. I can trust that they will tell me the facts correctly, I cannot necessarily trust their tone, rhetoric, or analysis.
-
In lighter news, thank god for Maryland
(Chappelle and Jealous grew up in adjacent counties, and Jealous is currently my county executive -- Prince George's County is wonderful. Have an atlantic article: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/ben-jealous-a-former-naacp-chief-tries-to-reclaim-populism/563597/)
-
Well currently, other nations are targeting sanctions at districts who voted in Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, and Mitch McConnell, so maybe other countries will have our back on this.
-
23 hours ago, bufkus said:
Anyone running into an issue in the game where they can't investigate spots where they should be able to? I've run into this twice in chapter 3 and once in chapter 4 so far.
Who are you using to investigate it? It should work but certain spots are secret investigation spots that only characters with the search ability can search and some are for everyone.
-
2 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:
But Chapter 5 is only one-third of the way through the plot, although the later chapters do lack as many if any sidequests to go with them, and you said you've haven't done the Ex missions either.
He has; he just hasn't made a formal announcement.
-
2 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:
I will applaud the moment I hear that Trump has been assassinated and the planet no longer has to hear from the orange turd.
Yeah, this is the last thing we want. It's fodder for the 40% floor of the country that approves of his job.
-
Just now, Anacybele said:
AB back then had things to work on as do pretty much all rookies, but he didn't need to be cut even then imo. And this is coming from someone that was unsure about him taking over the no. 1 WR spot for us when Hines Ward retired.
Well, something to keep in mind is that the 2010 corps were like Wallace/Ward/Sanders and being stuck at #4 behind them is definitely not the worst thing. The Steelers tend to carry 5 WRs and Antonio Brown was anywhere from an unknown quantity to a raw rookie with flashes.
It's really easy to look at these things in retrospect but Antonio Brown was not actually seen as much of a superstar around the league until around 2014.
General US Politics
in Serious Discussion
Posted · Edited by Lord Raven
The_Donald is wildly popular. Do you not go on reddit? They used to brigade posts there to make it to the front page, and it basically lived rent-free in a lot of redditers' heads.
It's a really big piece of shit subreddit and the only way you avoid it is if you actively avoid politics on reddit. And it's very very difficult to actively avoid politics on reddit. I actually believe much of it is Russian brigaded/driven.
At any rate, I really think it's not banned because they're trying to figure out how to ban it in the least shitstormy-way possible. Because if The_Donald gets banned, it's gonna make waves just about everywhere.