This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - ๐ Aria ๐ฎ
Pages: 1 ... 221222223 224225 ... 352
6661
« on: October 22, 2015, 03:38:51 PM »
The Republicans have yet to put a polarizing figure up.
Most of that problem is the fact that there are so many nominees that are repeats of each other. There is no definitive candidate because of how splintered the party is right now. As nominees withdraw, the pack leaders will become more clear.
6662
« on: October 22, 2015, 01:51:37 PM »
It was made to stop a popular left wing candidate from continually being elected and dressed up to look like "progress", kind of like PIPA, SOPA, and the Patriot Act. The top earning percent of Americans absolutely hated FDR for making them pay for WW2 and bail out the economy they ruined and they feared the prospect of having another FDR come up later down the line. Yeah, and Teddy's support of Taft (immediately after his second term) was seen at the time as "announcing an heir", drawing parallels to a Monarchy--  Which was greatly politicized. Americans, especially still at that time, despised the idea of a monarchy with a strong head of state. Before the 22nd Amendment, it wasn't a rule that a president doesn't have more than two terms; but it was generally understood that you shouldn't. And top earning Americans might influence a degree of legislation, but that's impossible to the extent that it passed with the necessary super-majority (3/4ths of the states) that they had that much influence over the Amendment beyond possibly its introduction to the floor. The tough requirements are specifically so to prevent unjust curbing of rights and liberties, in that in a well-regulated Democracy, these checks are precisely to insure that the government runs closely in accordance with the public at large. Telling people that they can't vote for who they want because they've been in office to long and forcing them to pick between a bunch of people they don't want isn't progress nor is it democratic. If they really wanted to prevent authoritarianism they would have set term limits across the board and them both for the senate and supreme court. However then they'd have to give up their cushy jobs as senators and representatives where they're able to vote to give themselves pay raises and they wouldn't be able to dictate the law of the land for 60+ years with their justice nominations. 27th Amendment checks pay raises-- they take effect the term after it's ratified by Congress. I agree that there should be term limits on Congress as well, so no argument there, but you can't deny that it's a step in the right direction. Especially so being that there is a clear head of the Executive (the president, indisputably), and the voice of Congress is heard in the majority party (which has the ability to change entirely between an two and six year period), so it's much less clear cut to enact greater checks given the enumerable possibilities that arise from a corrupt or malrepresented Congress other than removing them from office after their agreed term. And let's not forget that FDR wasn't even president when the Amendment went into effect. Harry Truman had been president for two years at the point it was introduced, and he was considered absolved from the amendment considering his term in office was a carry over as Vice President of FDR's fourth term in office, which was equally opposed by conservatives as much as the public for completely disregarding Washington's precedence of how long a President should hold office. And honestly, if term limits are going to be a thing they're needed on those two branches more than they are on the executive one. Good luck getting congress to give up unlimited terms though. Still not a right-wing stance; going back to the original point of content, both progressives and conservatives would disavow the other from monopolizing legislation. If you're really worried about getting a similar situation that we currently have with congress (where as in some states it's impossible to beat the incumbents because they just so much money that you'd burn out your own cash reserves trying to compete) you could solve that through campaign finance reform and allocate the same amount of money to every candidate that runs. Thus preventing what are essentially election buy outs (like what happened when the tea party took power).
That's a state issue. Look no further than Ohio, in that the law is written in such a way that third-parties have no way to access public funds (it has to be evenly divided between the Republican and Democrat candidates). In addition, if a candidate chooses to use public funds (practically never before 2008) they have an upper limit set on how much money they can raise. In the case of Obama in 2008, he chose not to use the available public funds and instead relied entirely on donations; the Citizens United v. FEC ruled that citizens, corporations, and the like cannot be limited in how much they spend on issue advertisements (commonly confused with PAC donations). There are campaign contribution limits already in place for either case, but it's limited to the individual in the one that people talk about now; not the candidate.
6663
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:37:16 PM »
And the executive has evolved into the figurehead of government; the founding fathers intended for the Legislature to be the primary division of government, as it represents the will of the people more directly. It's why before the 17th Amendment, the House of Representatives elected the Senate, and why Representatives represent by district (local influence) and have two year terms (to reflect changes in public opinion).
6664
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:35:03 PM »
I find that to be incredibly retarded. As head of government, I think the executive branch should control funding.
It's to solidify the case that the Executive enforces legislation, not create it. Executive Order is a thing to check laws and rulings that haven't been tried by the Judiciary yet (which can take an amount of time from the moment it goes into effect), so that legislature can't just pass laws fast enough that the Judiciary can't reject them before damage is done. It's basically supposed to be a legal refusal to enact or over-ride unjust law quickly, not a loophole for the executive to enforce its own policy.
6665
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:30:23 PM »
Another fun note. This can effectively clinch the nomination for Clinton.
Not sure how I feel about that. I agree with Bernie's general policy, but I really don't like how he wants to execute it. It's the reverse for Hillary; I agree with fewer of her policies, but I think she'd be more effective at actually getting them passed. Bernie's a guaranteed "nothing happened" presidency, but Hillary has the prospect of going either way.
Add in the fact that there's like no chance that Bernie would hold the lead in a general election by a safe margin, if leading at all, a Clinton nomination is the only chance for a Democrat President. At the same time, I'd rather have a couple of Republican candidates over Hillary.
Why can't this just be an easy vote like Romney vs Obama?
The right wing doesn't want another FDR (as in a popular candidate that consistently beats them) so Obama and Bill can't run for a third term.
22nd Amendment, dog. Hasn't been legal since 1951.
Yeah, that's what I was referencing.
Not really limited to the right wing. Amendments require a 75% ratification from states (38 states), of which the 1950s were more evenly divided between Republican and Democrat than 2010. It was made a policy by both parties, not just the right.
I said nothing about democrats and republicans. I said right wing. Democrat =/= left wing.
I still don't see how limiting the President's amount of terms is right-wing; it was made to prevent the incumbent from staying for too long, especially given how radically administrations change from president to president. Creating the amendment to promote progress is as much a reason as preventing Authoritarianism (being that they could be considered two sides of the same coin).
6666
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:23:09 PM »
I think some of Bernie's social policies can get through. I just think its his economic policies that are going to get bricked by congress.
It's called the executive order.
Oh so you want the president to become a dictator?
Checks and balances exist for a reason
Yeah, to curtail progress.
To prevent 18th century Parliament levels of control. Legislative makes the laws, Judiciary makes sure it's legal, Executive enforces it-- no one branch is more powerful than another.
6667
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:17:04 PM »
Another fun note. This can effectively clinch the nomination for Clinton.
Not sure how I feel about that. I agree with Bernie's general policy, but I really don't like how he wants to execute it. It's the reverse for Hillary; I agree with fewer of her policies, but I think she'd be more effective at actually getting them passed. Bernie's a guaranteed "nothing happened" presidency, but Hillary has the prospect of going either way.
Add in the fact that there's like no chance that Bernie would hold the lead in a general election by a safe margin, if leading at all, a Clinton nomination is the only chance for a Democrat President. At the same time, I'd rather have a couple of Republican candidates over Hillary.
Why can't this just be an easy vote like Romney vs Obama?
The right wing doesn't want another FDR (as in a popular candidate that consistently beats them) so Obama and Bill can't run for a third term.
22nd Amendment, dog. Hasn't been legal since 1951.
Yeah, that's what I was referencing.
Not really limited to the right wing. Amendments require a 75% ratification from states (38 states), of which the 1950s were more evenly divided between Republican and Democrat than 2010. It was made a policy by both parties, not just the right.
6668
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:13:00 PM »
I think some of Bernie's social policies can get through. I just think its his economic policies that are going to get bricked by congress.
Under heavy scrutiny and alteration, sure. And yeah, there is no way in hell that interest groups would allow even more lopsided taxation than we currently have or a $15 minimum wage. I think some of Bernie's social policies can get through. I just think its his economic policies that are going to get bricked by congress.
It's called the executive order.
That can be challenged or defunded by Congress. Legislative Branch controls revenue; no working money for the program means no program, or a severely butchered version of it.
6669
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:11:26 PM »
Another fun note. This can effectively clinch the nomination for Clinton.
Not sure how I feel about that. I agree with Bernie's general policy, but I really don't like how he wants to execute it. It's the reverse for Hillary; I agree with fewer of her policies, but I think she'd be more effective at actually getting them passed. Bernie's a guaranteed "nothing happened" presidency, but Hillary has the prospect of going either way.
Add in the fact that there's like no chance that Bernie would hold the lead in a general election by a safe margin, if leading at all, a Clinton nomination is the only chance for a Democrat President. At the same time, I'd rather have a couple of Republican candidates over Hillary.
Why can't this just be an easy vote like Romney vs Obama?
The right wing doesn't want another FDR (as in a popular candidate that consistently beats them) so Obama and Bill can't run for a third term.
22nd Amendment, dog. Hasn't been legal since 1951.
6670
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:09:32 PM »
It could have been phrased a bit better, if that's that case. I don't like the implication that arises from that wording. Well, think about it--wouldn't it be silly for a feminist to believe that men should be written as arrogant, stupid, etc.?
Not all feminists are Tumblrite misandric maneaters, you know.
Not saying that are-- just that Anita has a history of not paying any attention to male stigmatization or sexualization, to the point that most gather about her through guilt by silence and association (Literally Who, Jon McIntosh) imply that she isn't exactly against misandry.
6671
« on: October 22, 2015, 12:05:21 PM »
Another fun note. This can effectively clinch the nomination for Clinton.
Not sure how I feel about that. I agree with Bernie's general policy, but I really don't like how he wants to execute it. It's the reverse for Hillary; I agree with fewer of her policies, but I think she'd be more effective at actually getting them passed. Bernie's a guaranteed "nothing happened" presidency, but Hillary has the prospect of going either way. Add in the fact that there's like no chance that Bernie would hold the lead in a general election by a safe margin, if leading at all, a Clinton nomination is the only chance for a Democrat President. At the same time, I'd rather have a couple of Republican candidates over Hillary. Why can't this just be an easy vote like Romney vs Obama?
6672
« on: October 22, 2015, 11:55:25 AM »
Is that not what she's saying, though? She wants female characters to be more than female characters--she wants them to be actual characters with natural, human progressions. That's her agenda, as far as I'm able to tell.
I'm referring to the part where she said that it doesn't feel like a last minute gender swap, implying that there should be some sort of different progression or personality if a character's a male or female. If a character is well written, it shouldn't matter if the character was originally a male or female. Same goes with sexuality.
Yeah, I think that's what she's saying, though. I don't think that's what she was implying there, exactly--more that, because of the current formula, we've come to expect male/female characters to fall into specific stereotypes, which is her whole problem. It's not that they "should"--it's that it's a pleasant surprise that they don't.
It could have been phrased a bit better, if that's that case. I don't like the implication that arises from that wording.
6673
« on: October 22, 2015, 11:47:31 AM »
Is that not what she's saying, though? She wants female characters to be more than female characters--she wants them to be actual characters with natural, human progressions. That's her agenda, as far as I'm able to tell.
I'm referring to the part where she said that it doesn't feel like a last minute gender swap, implying that there should be some sort of different progression or personality if a character's a male or female. If a character is well written, it shouldn't matter if the character was originally a male or female. Same goes with sexuality.
6674
« on: October 22, 2015, 11:40:26 AM »
It would also be pretty different because we wouldn't have had the crusades.
Maybe we wouldn't have left the dark ages until a lot later.
Maybe the dark ages never started then.
Dark Ages were because of the fall of Rome, not Christianity (primarily, in any case).
6675
« on: October 22, 2015, 11:38:16 AM »
On your first point, though, I can see where you're coming from. It reminds me of what Christopher Hitchens wrote in some column awhile back about "why women aren't funny," and the only times when women are funny is when they are attempting to "emulate" male humor, or by being ostensibly masculine in general (Sarah Silverman, Roseanne Barr; "dykes, Jews, or butch").
Well, I think it's more that most people suck at humor-- male and female. That's more obvious in things like stand-up where you can't really do situational humor, but instead it has to be propped up on previously referred statements and other jokes. That, and stand-up comedy has mostly gravitated a select style of humor that, unfortunately, is male dominated because of history. Basically, I don't think humor is really relatable to personality; personality (should be) faceted and complex, whereas substantial humor can be found in the most simple observations (disregarding complexity). Someone shouldn't be strong and bullheaded just because he's a man, or fragile and manipulative because she's a women; stereotyping is a problem, and it's an issue that people think that negative traits (i.e. irrationality, rudeness, arrogance, manipulation) are "male characterization". If you can't be free to write someone as a person and not just a method to push an agenda (not that agendas are bad, but this delivery of it is), then I can't think of it as any more than simply pandering to an audience. Now I'm not saying that's what Ubisoft is doing with the twins, but I do think it's an issue with her take-away. If she is a good character, it's not because she's a strong independent woman who don't need no man; it's because she is more than a tool for pushing an agenda, an actual character with natural progression. That is true regardless of sex or gender, with any personality traits.
6676
« on: October 22, 2015, 10:59:17 AM »
Evie doesnโt feel like a male character who was a last minute gender swap but like she was developed from the ground up with a strong, capable and spirited personality. This is the only thing that I'm really iffy on in the review-- I don't like this idea that a person's personality has to be tied to their gender. The thought that came before it describing the twins' personalities, with Evie being collected and Jacob quick to act, makes it kind of seem like she's saying that a woman displaying irrationality is bad writing. And obviously the whole "trivializing issues by being in a violent AAA game", but I don't think you really stand by that either.
6677
« on: October 22, 2015, 08:47:03 AM »
What basis are you guys using that Christianity was a beneficial force throughout history? Just curious, because a lot of this just seems to be conjecture and speculation.
I'm not really sure if you can judge it any other way tbh. Christianity has kind of been a thing for 2000 years or so, so it's kind of hard to say how drastically things would have been different without it. It's not something physical either, like the invention of the airplane; it's a belief that was held by most of Europe, and then spread to colonies after, and to say anything about how it affected the development of its followers can only be speculated.
6678
« on: October 21, 2015, 08:04:49 PM »
I bet OP is trans.
Stop projecting
6679
« on: October 21, 2015, 08:03:13 PM »
You know, sleeping fixes the problem for free instead of wasting stims for crippling injuries.
Hell, loading screens have excellent tips for first-timers.
Yeah, I know. That's if I can find a free bed, though.
Or a cheap one, if the situation is bad.
6680
« on: October 21, 2015, 11:55:41 AM »
Its cause Hillary is too far in the lead.
If it was more even between Hillary and Bernie, He would have stepped in to take away votes from Bernie. Simple politics, he never had any real interest in running.
Well, the reasons he gave in his speech were that it's too late to mount a successful campaign at this point and that he doesn't see a clear path to the presidency. He would want great odds that he'd win, not just okay ones; given that his biggest reason for attempting the run was his son's dying wish, not running is preferable to running and losing in terms of emotional toll.
6681
« on: October 21, 2015, 11:44:55 AM »
People actually thought Biden would be a good candidate?
Enough that, if I remember correctly, he was still rating at 17% in the polls after the Democratic Debate despite not doing anything in terms of campaigning.
6682
« on: October 21, 2015, 11:39:19 AM »
Biden is the only democrat that I would have 100% voted for; hopefully this will be an easier vote as time goes on, and we're stuck with a decision between the lesser of two evils.
6684
« on: October 21, 2015, 11:25:09 AM »
6685
« on: October 21, 2015, 11:14:59 AM »
Why is everyone ignoring that she threatened to donkey kick the woman's baby out? There are few countries that wouldn't arrest you for that.
I don't think anybody has ignored that. You, and a few others, responded to Turkey's post when he brought it up.
Then this is a pretty easy to judge case. What's the discussion? She wasn't arrested for simply being racist.
The discussion is whether it's right or necessary to also tag the crime with Islamophobia.
6686
« on: October 21, 2015, 10:42:46 AM »
cuntry music r shit
Luckily, all the music in NV is ๐
6687
« on: October 21, 2015, 10:37:54 AM »
Why is everyone ignoring that she threatened to donkey kick the woman's baby out? There are few countries that wouldn't arrest you for that.
I don't think anybody has ignored that. You, and a few others, responded to Turkey's post when he brought it up.
6688
« on: October 21, 2015, 08:56:44 AM »
You're sittin' down and wonderin' what it's all about
You ain't got no money, they will put you out
Why don't you do right, like some other men do?
Get out of here and get me some money too
6689
« on: October 20, 2015, 10:40:18 PM »
That's about where I got last time
 SOCIALIST SCUM, UNITE except not because libertarding, but whatever
6690
« on: October 20, 2015, 09:31:27 PM »
40 hours of gametime or bust
Pages: 1 ... 221222223 224225 ... 352
|
Show Posts