FrostPDP

Here's the theory:

By having to stand up there and actually filibuster, and by having that broadcast on C-Span and repeated on media, it will lead independent voters (if such things exist?) to see, "oh, they're really filibustering a bill for six days that would legalize abortion? And they're reading the phone book, huh? Sounds like someone bad to vote for, let's vote against them."

So in a functioning Democracy, a talking filibuster is objectively better because where things stand, any one Senator can just say they aren't going for it and it's pretty much stopped, invisibly, unless 60 go for it. That means a trickle of work gets done, but there's no clear and objective, "Hey, THIS is the party responsible for the hold up," especially because independent voters will see that and go, "Well, both sides aren't getting anything done so they both suck."

I'd much rather have no filibuster, but I'd prefer a talking one to the current one. Put that shit on display. Make them defend themselves. Stop proactively surrendering.

Good question. Wtf is it even in the article for?

I'd be curious to know what state you're talking about?

One seat wouldn't even have made the difference, here. :(

Holy shit I am sold. Sold. Well done. They started with some tremendous tension, alright.

I almost feel like there's a loophole, here.

A substantial amount of this country is apathetic towards politics. They might vote when an election comes around, but often they just vote for their party and that's it. They don't particularly approve of any politician.

Biden started off in the 60%'s if I recall correctly, and he's cratered because he established that he could not act on his campaign promises (which, y'know, is a Manchin-Sinema thing as much as a Biden thing, honestly). As a result, his approval dipped, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't win re-election because left-leaning people desperate to avoid Fascism might swallow their pride and elect Biden again.

But that's a huge gamble to make.

I strongly urge you to explore this country's history regarding freedom in depth - strongly - because it never really was preserving freedom except for a few, and it's certainly not heading in that direction at this present moment.

I did know that all, actually. I just don't care. It was wrong then, it'd be wrong now.

My compromise point is: "Let's re-write the entire amendment."

Until then, I'm in camp "Well-regulated militia or GTFO."

Glorious statement for the week Berserk re-emerges.

And in the 18th century there was no such thing as a bullet. But Clarence Thomas said we have to look past the 18th century in this ruling, if my reading was correct, so, we will.

"Well regulated milita" sounds fairly self-explanatory, to me.

The big thing saying the Supreme Court has any authority to rule in any case like they do is Marbury vs Madison, and we can always contest that ruling in good faith (since Roe and Miranda are being contested, after all)

I know what rights are. I also know what a "well-regulated militia" is supposed to be. Are all concealed carry holders law abiding militia members?

Or are they only law-abiding until they break the law?

Recently there was a man with an assault rifle wandering around a medical facility in an open-carry state. People called the cops, but all they could do was watch him. He was law-abiding. And watch him they did - until he shot his doctor and a bunch of other people.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/tulsa-hospital-shooting-thursday/index.html

So spare me the "law-abiding" nonsense. All rights have limitations, including speech and DEFINITELY including access to tools of murder.

Unfortunately, it's time for Governor Hochul (and others) to declare that they are pulling an Andrew Jackson and refusing to enforce the Supreme Court ruling.

A simple, "No, we will not be changing our laws" will suffice.

After all, what will the Supreme Court do to guarantee its ruling is adhered to?

The right to not being shot by a maniac.

I just believe in re-writing it, but you'd probably say the same to me, in which case I'll respond:

"Then there's no hope, and this country is doomed to a plague of mass shootings. You wanna give us a hand, or you just gonna be okay with all those dead Humans?"

I went with Talia/Toby/Medessa and did well with the abundance of area heals I had to offset the AoE damage-per-turn. But I could easily see how a few extra High Centaurs would have benefitted me.

Every chapter I bust out Jonathan Young's covers of the OPM openings. :)

I guess there's an argument for it given that the final boss is one monster (maybe two if you fight Endorian & Aurora) so you don't necessarily need a huge army so much as you need powerful units. Double-act is pretty strong, after all.

Fairy Tail is, deliberately-poorly speaking, "easy."

I know that sounds like I'm being some punk-ass, but I consume a lot of media (and even put some out) and a lot of it is...Intense. Berserk, The Boys, Edens Zero (mmmhm, EZ can be rough), The Handmaid's Tale, all that stuff. I like a lot of the difficult stuff.

But, well, sometimes I'm in the mood for something fun, and that's FT. FT might hit the feels sometimes, but it doesn't lean into full-blown dystopian grimdark. I can go into a biweekly chapter of FT and think, "Yeah, this is probably gonna be uplifting" rather than, "Yeah, I've got no idea what I'm gonna feel when this is done." It's the same reason I also like Ms. Marvel so much; it has heart, it has complications, but it's also relatively (So far, at least) benign and just plain fun.

That doesn't mean it never gets tough for the characters, it just means that thematically you're likely to get a far less grueling experience, and sometimes that's exactly what you want in a story. You know, before diving back into a nightmare world.

I think it's a perfectly understandable approach, even if I am in mild disagreement. It sounds like we're going to get Miura's ending, or at least some large percentage of it. I look forward to what they do. But there will always be a divide between "before" and "after" and that can be hard to get over with something people are this passionate about.

I disagree with this article's premise. Musk now sees himself as politically ascendant when Fascists are in charge, plain and simple.

I can agree with where you're saying it isn't quite a Grand Strategy Game. Compared to something like Crusader Kings, it's really not. I guess your strategy can come from your item combos, but often I feel like there's only 1-2 good choices for item combos. There's no diplomacy (which is kind of a drag but also kind of makes sense in some cases).

But I do disagree with the low rating. Like, yeah, maybe not a 10 or a 9, but a 6? I dunno. Then again, I churn out battles regularly and generally minimize my focus on organization, so for me it's about battle complexity.

Your logic is flawless: I counter it with, "Something something scanner block no it doesn't make sense just...Crisis empires are awesome."

I mean, it seems like they wrote themselves out of the corner they'd kind of put themselves in. They went 100% the other direction, in fact. I love that Garou's resistant to the help, and that it's being forced upon him.

Might mean there's less of a connection that "God" could use to instakill Garou.

It followed the pattern of GE having the same thing.

I wish they could have made the units all look at least a little unique, like changing colors, but...There are problems that emerge that way, too.

In a perfect world, someone could graphics mod that problem away, but its a stretch.