Lurker > Suprak the Stud

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

My argument is the law should change, particularly for immigrants seeking asylum from Mexico or South America as they are our neighbors.

Your argument is the law is the law, which isnt satisfactory to me because I was a value based assessment on why the law is the law.

Like in particular the argument from the right seems you to be but Mexican gangs are dangerous which, yes, true, but that is not the group I wanted admitted to the country. Particularly, it is because of these gangs that I want more women and children allowed into the country. I want our immigration laws fundamentally changed. So the law is the law isnt an argument I find persuasive.

I understand it, but you fail to see where we agree. We both agree the law should change. I told you how I think it should. Until then, it needs to be enforced as is and hopefully it will spur that change.

Sadly I dont think were going to see eye to eye on this then because we have a fundamentally different viewpoint when it comes to the law and morality I think.

Oh well of course we do. That is the nature of being on opposing sides. It does not mean however that we can understand each other's sides without labeling of names in regards to it.

I understand your side. I just think the greater issue of the laws being paramount and the breaking down of society, law, and order that happens if laws are subject to convenience of the whims or flavor of the month take.

Hey I never called you names! I just dont think its worth decaying because I see where our fundamental difference lies and I dont think there is much we can do to sway each others opinions.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Meow1000 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Well there are only five books and Im not confident well ever get a six.

Final until ADwD comes out at least.

Oh I have no GoT knowledge, I just figure out your games right away anyway tbqh.

Hush, you.

(Blade broke like two of my games so far so I probably shouldnt let him in anymore for those who are unaware.)
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Well there are only five books and Im not confident well ever get a six.

Final until ADwD comes out at least.

So... Final!

I mean...yes. Probably.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

My argument is the law should change, particularly for immigrants seeking asylum from Mexico or South America as they are our neighbors.

Your argument is the law is the law, which isnt satisfactory to me because I was a value based assessment on why the law is the law.

Like in particular the argument from the right seems you to be but Mexican gangs are dangerous which, yes, true, but that is not the group I wanted admitted to the country. Particularly, it is because of these gangs that I want more women and children allowed into the country. I want our immigration laws fundamentally changed. So the law is the law isnt an argument I find persuasive.

I understand it, but you fail to see where we agree. We both agree the law should change. I told you how I think it should. Until then, it needs to be enforced as is and hopefully it will spur that change.

Sadly I dont think were going to see eye to eye on this then because we have a fundamentally different viewpoint when it comes to the law and morality I think.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Well there are only five books and Im not confident well ever get a six.

Final until ADwD comes out at least.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I have my final ASoIaF mafia game ready, but Ill wait for everyone else who wants to go to go.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Like I dont think anyone is a bad person for wanting immigration laws. What I dont understand is why we cant all agree these immigrants dont deserve a chance in our country and what danger they pose.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

My argument is the law should change, particularly for immigrants seeking asylum from Mexico or South America as they are our neighbors.

Your argument is the law is the law, which isnt satisfactory to me because I was a value based assessment on why the law is the law.

Like in particular the argument from the right seems you to be but Mexican gangs are dangerous which, yes, true, but that is not the group I wanted admitted to the country. Particularly, it is because of these gangs that I want more women and children allowed into the country. I want our immigration laws fundamentally changed. So the law is the law isnt an argument I find persuasive.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

Actually I retract what I said.

Im not gonna call people monsters. No more dehumanization.

People who support child internment camps have very troubling and heartless opinions

This is perhaps the issue Im most liberal on, and the one I have the hardest time understanding the other side on.

I thought I was most conservative on the issue of trade, but Trump turned that on its head.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I never understood the rights attempts to paint Obama as weak on immigration, when he wasnt really more liberal than George W Bush and was in some ways more hardline.

I think it was more a comparison to Hillary's open borders private talks. That said, you can be further right as you see now. Obviously, I agree with what is going on now but would like for a non court stricken indefinite detainment for families during cases or for a more streamlined case system where it didn't take so long to finally get the proper outcomes made.

As someone has said (I think Trump), just because you have kids, you shouldn't be immune to immigration laws.

Do you understand why they are trying to immigrate to the US though? Why would they bring their kids here, in your opinion?

I get it. But if they want to come here then your option is to do it via proper ways. I get why people murder some people sometimes. Doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to them.

There is a difference between murder and attempting to cone to another country because your country is dangerous and you dont want your children to die. Not all laws are created equal, and Im more likely to forgive someone who jaywalked than someone who is a murderer.

This is particularly true when I think our own immigration system is too onerous, particularly for people seeking asylum.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

I never understood the rights attempts to paint Obama as weak on immigration, when he wasnt really more liberal than George W Bush and was in some ways more hardline.

I think it was more a comparison to Hillary's open borders private talks. That said, you can be further right as you see now. Obviously, I agree with what is going on now but would like for a non court stricken indefinite detainment for families during cases or for a more streamlined case system where it didn't take so long to finally get the proper outcomes made.

As someone has said (I think Trump), just because you have kids, you shouldn't be immune to immigration laws.

Do you understand why they are trying to immigrate to the US though? Why would they bring their kids here, in your opinion?
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Ashethan posted...

Why is it that there are so few conservatives who are actually decent people?

This is a potentially dangerous point of view.

Corrik posted...

Ashethan posted...

Why is it that there are so few conservatives who are actually decent people?

Because everyone who is a conservative has to be a monster to you so you can feel morally superior and correct. Just how it is for your side. You can't debate against your side without being a piece of shit. It is the joy of being a liberal. You are always right and everyone who disagrees is a terrible person.

This is sadly no different than the majority of conservatives though. People who are pro choice dont have a different point of view on life or autonomy, but are monstrous baby killers without morals. It isnt an issue exclusive to one side.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

I never understood the rights attempts to paint Obama as weak on immigration, when he wasnt really more liberal than George W Bush and was in some ways more hardline.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Yeah, thanks, I misunderstood your point. I was already aware of his less the stellar record on immigration.

Or pretty good record on immigration, I guess, depending on your viewpoint.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Togedemaru
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

metroid composite posted...

Corrik posted...

Though Trump has reportedly been wanting the law changed also to allow parents to be detained with children during their cases. Apparently Obama tried this and was shot down by the courts, so he continued with the exceptions.

I am struggling to find a source that says Obama separated children from parents.

Like...here's an interview quote denying it:

former President Barack Obama's domestic policy director, Cecilia Muoz, stated unequivocally that separating children from their parents was not a policy the Obama administration followed.

"The Obama administration did not do that, no. We did not separate children from their parents," Muoz said.

Here's a source saying that it happened only in cases of possible domestic violence:

Separating parents from children was rare under the Obama administration and in the early part of the Trump administration, usually reserved only for cases where the safety of a child was in question. Nearly 1,800 immigrant families were separated over 17 months prior to February, according to a Reuters report.

Here's one that says the law existed as far back as 2005, but both the Bush and Obama administrations did not enforce it:

The zero tolerance practice of immediately imprisoning, prosecuting, and deporting immigrants who illegally enter the United States has been around since 2005, but the George W. Bush and Obama administrations were morally and pragmatically opposed to separating immigrant children from their families, even if some adult immigrants were clearly taking advantage of that compassion.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/separating-families-at-border-was-always-part-of-the-plan.html

Don't get me wrong, the Obama administration had a pretty bad record from human rights advocates over its immigration policy, but not on this particular point. (More on stuff like making 3 year olds represent themselves in court--the Obama administration definitely did that). Separating children from parents seems to have become policy part way through the Trump administration (not when Trump first took office, about a year later).

Yeah, I think Obama got kind of a pass considering how hard line he actually was on immigration. Both Clinton and sanders basically campaigned on Obama is bad on immigration because of this.

But I also couldnt find anything about Obama enforcing this particular policy of Trumps. I could be wrong, but it was news to me and I didnt see anything when I searched for it.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Dels posted...

Nothing stopping you guys from hosting a game over there and just having everyone make an account there and play. In fact, I'm sure they'd be happy to have an influx of new people.

Ive played over there and its a really good community with low levels of toxicity and a lot of active, really good players.

So everyone should at least check it out imo!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Aw yeah happy Fathers Day!

I didnt realize there were more than just me, Corrik and Tony.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Mienshao
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/17/politics/melania-trump-children-separated-immigration/index.html

I know someone you could talk to this about, Melania.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

redrocket posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I heard an interesting theory about Noah. The Bible says that Noah preached about the coming doom for 100 years, yet only 8 people ended up going on the Ark with him, all of whom were his own family. Why is it that in 100 years of preaching, Noah managed to win exactly zero converts? The theory is that Noah did not love the people (so, for instance, there is no record that he ever prayed for them, which is something he would have done if he genuinely cared about them). People are perceptive and could tell that he did not love them, so no one listened to his warnings.

Does this relate to the current discussion somehow?

Its red sox. It doesnt contribute any less to the current discussion than any of his other posts.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Mienfoo
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Spritzee
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Kommo-o
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Morelull
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Tapu Koko
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

StealThisSheen posted...

redrocket posted...

and most importantly he doesn't even address, let alone deny her accusations of blacklisting.

Eh, he indirectly does by countering her saying she broke up with him and he did that by saying he broke up with her and she wanted him back for a few weeks. He'd have no need to blacklist her if he was the one that initiated the breakup, so that's likely the denial there.

I think its extremely likely the blacklisting happened, as a couple of other people (including former G4 coworker Chris Gore) confirmed that they were either aware of this or had also been blacklisted by Hardwick.

I mean, if you want to believe him though it is still plausible he had her blacklisted because he was upset about the affair. And if you believe her its because he was a sociopath doing all sorts of bad stuff. That could be why he didnt deny that aspect of it. Because it was probably well documented he did.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Emolga
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Meow1000 posted...

Doesn't sound like MI to have a total breakdown over just that, I'm betting there's an outside influence involved. A pretty big one, and something here is what triggered the self-destruct. Speaking of prophetic, I'm pretty sure Crescent warned the town a few times before she replaced out about towns getting complacent and eventually imploding.

"lol" you guys

I'm really sad to see him go as he was my mafia buddy, but he admitted that mafia wasn't good for his state of mind several times while I played with him. He takes it very seriously, and personally, and it can be compounded by IRL issues. Hopefully he's alright wherever he is.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

ColZach posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Full disclosure I forgot some of my scum team day 1.

To be honest this seems like a good strategy. Dont check your scummates till after half of day 1. Makes your posts more genuine.

This is cheating and don't do that.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

DoomTheGyarados posted...

BY THE WAY

FOOLMO.

I loved played with you. You did a great job and you being lynched was bullshit.

It was bizarre for town to be arguing "town has too much scanning! kill a scanner!" and then "folio's role does nothing! kill him for it!" Like...those two things counteract each other.

Also his role didn't do nothing! He lock confirmed Corrik.

I was impressed since this was foolmo's first forum game iirc.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Peace___Frog posted...

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1007650252575379456

Manafort sent to jail after judge cancels his house arrest, according to Bloomberg. https://t.co/6MBZf4ADZT

"Nothingburger"

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1007679422865006593?s=21

What an incredible, horrendous embarrassment to America this guy is.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

GildedFool posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1007317351031861248

lmao

Ahem. I counter.

https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1007376361101582336

Extraordinary.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1006535798689353728

Really makes me think.

This has to be intentional right? Rubios not that oblivious

There is no way he didn't know what he was doing. Especially with the way he phrased it.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Red Sox is like that scene in A Beautiful Mind where Russell Crowe has that huge wall of things connected by string, except all the things that Red Sox is connecting are drawn in crayon.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Yeah, that's what I was assuming, too. He can't go "no trade anymore", but if he can just set tariffs without any input from congress, he could just go "okay tariffs on everything at 1 million percent" effectively banning trade.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

LordoftheMorons posted...

Does he even have the ability to do that...?

I was surprised he could just establish tariffs unilaterally in the first place.

Last week Bob Corker put forward a bill to formally reestablish the role of congress in tariffs, but it is unclear it will go anywhere with so many Trump cronies in the house.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

metroid composite posted...

Blackscar posted...

That doesn't sound like a good deal to me. If Bernie would stronger, he would be the true leader of the Democratic Party instead of being a flip flopper. Just like how Donald overthrew or replaced the Republican leadership. But Bernie's getting pretty old now and I wouldn't expect him to last much longer.

Bernie looks a lot older than he is. About the same age as Biden. 5 years older than Trump.

Bernie's just always looked old. Pictures of Bernie from over 20 years ago already had him looking old. Like...here he is in the 80s with Jessie Jackson (looking like he's ready for a nursing home despite being not even 50):

http://chriscutrone.platypus1917.org/?p=2296

I mean, both Biden and Trump are old, so if you're saying "he's only 5 years older than Trump!" then I think Blackscar is correct in saying that Bernie's pretty old now.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Every now and then I find myself thinking that red sox might be a sophomore programmer's attempt to create a cleverbot clone.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Toby (The Office)
Jerry (Parks and Rec)
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Seems like a good thing for Republicans to campaign on in the upcoming elections!

You would excuse me if I thought this was a red sox post at first.

(I was being sarcastic if that wasnt obvious.

But yes I could see that!)
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/07/politics/trump-admin-aca/index.html

In announcing the lawsuit back in February, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, "The US Supreme Court already admitted that an individual mandate without a tax penalty is unconstitutional. With no remaining legitimate basis for the law, it is time that Americans are finally free from the stranglehold of Obamacare, once and for all."

In court papers, lawyers for Texas asked a Texas judge to hold that the ACA is unlawful and enjoin its operation.

"The DOJ agrees with Texas that the individual mandate is unconstitutional once the tax penalty was zeroed out, and if it is struck down, the guaranteed issue and community ratings provisions go with it," said Jost.

"In other words, people can once again be denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions or be charged more," Jost said.

Seems like a good thing for Republicans to campaign on in the upcoming elections!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Klay would certainly be the guy in like, 16 teams.

Really wish Kyrie wasn't out for the ECF. Would've loved to see healthy Boston in these finals.

Really wish CP didn't get hurt at the end of game 5 because the WCF should've been more entertaining those last two games.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Like, hypothetically, say Bernie Sanders gets the nomination.

I see a 0% chance he endorses Bernie Sanders. Ever. Hillary was at least further to the right than Obama. Sanders is so far to the left that I could see Manchin endorsing Trump over Sanders, because honestly Trump is closer to him politically. Again, I think it is more likely he just doesn't endorse anyone like he did in 2012, but in that scenario I could see him endorsing Trump.

I dunno if I agree, Bernie does excellent with the working class, and dominated Hillary in West Virginia

True, but according to exit polls in that race a full 40% of his voters said they'd vote Trump over him if that matchup came to pass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Democratic_primary,_2016

They just really hate Hillary Clinton (and Obama) there, apparently. Plus, in spite of how well Sanders does with the working class, I don't think that will matter in West Virginia. That plays well in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc., but WV is pretty much coal country and Sanders is not "good" for the coal industry. He is also the furthest left "democrat" that is in the front runners for the 2020 nominee (is he a front runner? does polling show that? I'm saying that just as a gut feeling but I don't know), and Manchin is pretty far to the right on almost all social issues.

I could be wrong, but I am almost positive Manchin would not endorse either. Or possibly even Trump, depending on what Trump does in Manchin's upcoming election.

(I'm not saying Sanders is a bad candidate, btw, even though he's definitely not my preference. I just think Manchin is so far on the other end of the Democratic Party that I do not think he endorses him, particularly since he didn't endorse Obama in 2012)
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Golden State for the minimum salary.

They'll go 82-0.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

metroid composite posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

These are actually some really interesting numbers on voting with Trump. I had no idea Rand Paul was the biggest dissenter, but I guess that makes sense. He just falls in line better for the important votes better than Murkowski and Collins do, I guess.

I mean, the big votes being "remove Obamacare and replace it with nothing" and "lower taxes", yeah the libertarian is going to be in favour of those.

I'm too lazy to look at his voting record, but I'm guessing he opposed trump in areas like war and privacy. Probably voted against all the increases in military spending. Might have voted against Trump on subjects like making it legal for ISPs to sell your internet history.

You can just click on the names to see their voting policy, so this is extra lazy!

But you're mostly correct. He also tends to vote against all of his economic bills. Basically any spending bill, not just military ones. He was also vocally against both of those two big bills you mentioned at first, but ultimately fell in line (most likely because he realized his position was in the minority and they were better than nothing).

EDIT: Like the tax bill was "lower taxes but not cut enough so we explode the debt" which is something a libertarian would not be in favor of. And he wasn't, for a while. But it was clear no one else wanted to blow up like six departments to pay for it, so he ultimately came along for the ride.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_West_Virginia,_2012#Democratic_primary

Barack Obama defeated Keith Judd, a convicted felon serving a federal prison sentence in Texarkana, TX, by a surprisingly narrow 59% to 41%.

I'm beginning to think people in West Virginia did not like Barrack Obama much.

*thinking face emoji*
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Like, hypothetically, say Bernie Sanders gets the nomination.

I see a 0% chance he endorses Bernie Sanders. Ever. Hillary was at least further to the right than Obama. Sanders is so far to the left that I could see Manchin endorsing Trump over Sanders, because honestly Trump is closer to him politically. Again, I think it is more likely he just doesn't endorse anyone like he did in 2012, but in that scenario I could see him endorsing Trump.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

LordoftheMorons posted...

I'm usually a big Manchin defender (especially for the very valid reason stated earlier that he's the best you're going to get from a liberal perspective in WV), but saying he might endorse Trump in 2020 is clear pandering and just sad. He may agree with the Republican party generally on a decent number of issues and may have tried to butter up Trump to get him on his side for a few things, but there is absolutely no way he personally respects Trump at all having seen him up close and personal. He's looking at Trump's approval ratings in his state and making the same calculation that all of the DC Republicans who bitch about Trump off the record but praise him in public are making. It's really pathetic and I deeply hope that he doesn't actually endorse the piece of shit.

(This is similar to how Manchin refused to call Blankenship a racist when asked before the WV primary; he obviously knew he was, but presumably wanted to keep Blankenship's anger focused on 'Cocaine Mitch').

Honestly, part of me was worried he would endorse Trump in 2016 for a bit. Primarily because he didn't endorse Obama in 2012 (although he was running for reelection that year), so I was slightly surprised he endorsed Hillary. I thought, at best, he might remain out of it entirely.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

charmander6000 posted...

No one is really a deciding vote because there are so many what ifs, so I don't know what you guys are trying to argue.

Well I'm arguing the "deciding vote" is a bad way to gauge this because 1) it almost never happens and 2) there is much more that goes into it than just what the final vote tally was.

Like my argument would be "Manchin has been involved in a bunch of close votes that favored Trump and is almost always the first democrat that comes out in favor of something, usually before the final numbers are decided and it is safe to 'pile on'".

Like clearly the Republicans would prefer an actual Republican in there because 61% is too low for WV. But I don't anything Manchin has done is out of character for him, considering his history as a social conservative and fiscal liberal-ish individual.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."