Lurker > Suprak the Stud

As someone who consumes much more right wing news than you do Corrik, I can tell you that white supremacists are absolutely a problem in this country. The UTR rally Tony mentioned is the highest profile example, but they are a surprisingly loud group. They aren't huge, but they are growing and trying to solidify anger over feminism, political correctness, etc to grow their brand and their tent.

They're dangerous.
---

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

Jakyl25 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

None of those look particularly promising.

I dont doubt you, but how can you tell?

Google search!

Most of them have wikipedia pages detailing some court cases. Others popped up with articles from conservative/liberal outlets saying why they were good/bad. Others are Senator Mike Lee from Utah who (surprisingly) is not a good advocate for abortion rights.

There were a couple that were a little sparse on information, but most of these popped up very easily with at least a wikipedia entry or recent news article.
---

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

I go back and forth on the cake decision. Ultimately, I would never shop at a place that refused to make a cake for a gay wedding and I would advise my friends to do the same, but I am not sure I want the government punishing them for refusal to do so. In this limited scope. Like you can't refuse them service because they are gay, but you are free to refuse to put any specific message on the cake that you disagree with. If that makes sense.

My desire for equality often clashes up against my strong support for the freedom of speech.

Corrik posted...

Suprak

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-supreme-court-list/

None of those look particularly promising.

I'm just honestly looking for someone at this point that won't overturn gay marriage and won't overturn Roe v. Wade. I'm hoping Collins/Murkowski being pro abortion will make them stronger on this candidate than they were on Gorsuch since they aren't replacing Scalia they are replacing Kennedy. I'm probably being optimistic about their integrity though, sadly.
---

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

I am personally super jelly and like hearing the insider info.
---

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

Corrik posted...

Do you have the list of his judges from before Suprak?

Trump's? I do not, but I am also fairly certain Gorsuch wasn't even on the shortlist. Was he? I may be misremembering.
---

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

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Corrik posted...

I think the Supreme Court end of times going on for democrats right now is a bit exaggerated. Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court for like the past 46 years or something.

Interestingly, the previous swing judge, O'Connor, was also a republican. But there is a difference between republicans like O'Connor and Kennedy and people like Alito and Gorsuch.

To your point though, Roberts is also not all that ideologically different than Kennedy, so the current impact won't be all that significant. Kennedy sided with Republicans for everything except abortion and gay rights. Those are big issues, obviously, but I'm not entirely sure Roberts is going to want to rule against a recent ruling in his own court like that.

But the next two oldest judges are RBG and Breyer. If Democrats can't get their act together, and I have no faith in them to be able to do so, it could soon be heavily Republican dominated.

Wasn't the supreme Court like 7-2 or something in the 70s.

Nothing is happening to gay marriage even if it is 9-0 conservatives at this point.

It has been republican for a very long time, yes, but like Chris said a lot of these Republicans were moderate republicans. If Trump is looking to put someone like Thomas in there, then this is almost a very conservative court in a way we haven't seen in quite some time. They really just need one more at this point.

And the decision in favor of gay marriage was 5-4, with all the current Republicans on the court (except Gorsuch obviously) against it. Even Roberts was against it. We know where he stands on the issue, the only question is if he feels strongly enough about it to relitigate it even though it was just ruled the other way by his own court. I don't know for sure. I would guess no, but that isn't a guarantee.
---

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

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

DoomTheGyarados posted...

The problem isn't democrat vs republican it is the fact that much of both parties are bought and paid for. And sure, money talks 'fair' but... they aren't serving the American people :/

Well the case you're referring to broke 5-4 along ideological lines. I know people like to default to the "but both sides" thing, but this is one clear instance where one side is demonstrably worse than the other on the issue you're arguing for.

Not that big money in politics isn't an issue on the democratic side as well, but it is just less of an issue at the moment.

Yeah but I am not sure if the guy Obama would have appointed would have not made it 5-4 is all I am saying.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html

He joined a unanimous opinion in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 ruling from a nine-judge panel that allowed unlimited contributions to super PACs, nominally independent groups that support political candidates. The logic of the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United required the move, the appeals courts opinion said, transforming the political landscape.

Citizens United concerned only independent spending by corporations and unions, not rich people. But it said that there was only one justification for restricting political spending: quid pro quo corruption akin to bribery. It added that independent spending could never satisfy that standard.

While Judge Garland unhesitatingly extended Citizens United when he believed its logic compelled him to do so, he was unwilling to push further than it required. In July, writing for a unanimous 11-member panel in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, Judge Garland upheld a ban on campaign contributions from federal contractors, saying the interest in preventing corruption that survived Citizens United warranted the move.

Interesting. Fair enough! He was extremely moderate and might've been slightly left of Kennedy but right of any of the liberal justices on the court. It isn't clear though from my brief search if he agreed with Citizens United or was merely ruling in regards to the previous Supreme Court decision though. He still would've been far more likely to reverse the decision than someone like, say, Gorsuch.
---

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

Corrik posted...

I think the Supreme Court end of times going on for democrats right now is a bit exaggerated. Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court for like the past 46 years or something.

Interestingly, the previous swing judge, O'Connor, was also a republican. But there is a difference between republicans like O'Connor and Kennedy and people like Alito and Gorsuch.

To your point though, Roberts is also not all that ideologically different than Kennedy, so the current impact won't be all that significant. Kennedy sided with Republicans for everything except abortion and gay rights. Those are big issues, obviously, but I'm not entirely sure Roberts is going to want to rule against a recent ruling in his own court like that.

But the next two oldest judges are RBG and Breyer. If Democrats can't get their act together, and I have no faith in them to be able to do so, it could soon be heavily Republican dominated.
---

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

DoomTheGyarados posted...

The problem isn't democrat vs republican it is the fact that much of both parties are bought and paid for. And sure, money talks 'fair' but... they aren't serving the American people :/

Well the case you're referring to broke 5-4 along ideological lines. I know people like to default to the "but both sides" thing, but this is one clear instance where one side is demonstrably worse than the other on the issue you're arguing for.

Not that big money in politics isn't an issue on the democratic side as well, but it is just less of an issue at the moment.
---

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

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Just need to reverse one Supreme Court decision.

When Democrats get a majority on the Supreme Court in 2065, they'll be so screwed.
---

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

Corrik posted...

This woman that won and everyone is talking about, including Trump, is she the one you are referring to?

Yeah, I looked her up. That's who. She def got some teeth on her but she is pretty good looking. I think a lot of people are trying to jump the gun talking about her running for president in 2020 though.

Has Trump said anything about Ocasio-Cortez? I thought it was more just a "haha Crowley you suck" kinda thing without referencing her directly.
---

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

I agree with a lot of her platform, but then again I agreed with a lot of her opponents platform as well. I am definitely against free college for all, at least in the way college is currently implemented. I also don't necessarily want ICE abolished like she does, and I think the problems with it are more of an extension of the current administration and our border policy over the past couple decades. So I'm fine with the concept of ICE, but I don't like the way it is currently implemented.

Beyond that everything I've seen from her looks positive! I didn't necessarily want her opponent replaced though, so I wasn't particularly excited for her win either.
---

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

Corrik posted...

Suprak, did you view that thread? Thoughts on it?

Not yet!

I was on the Donald for a while yesterday so I had my share of crazy. Maybe today.
---

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

Like I dont agree with Corrik on almost anything but I dont see the value or encircling anyone who wants to talk to him and yelling SHAME until they agree to stop.
---

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

I dont get what is so hard about just scrolling past posts you dont agree with or dont want to respond to.
---

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

Corrik posted...

https://twitter.com/Curtis_Cook/status/1012070956494274560

Wow what a take.

For those curious (since he deleted it) it was along the lines of "I wish this Kennedy had been shot instead of the others"
---

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

The interesting thing is both of the justices Obama replaced during his presidency were appointed by Republicans, and it didn't make the court more significantly liberal than it already was. It was a strange time before Clinton when more moderate judges were considered, I suppose.

Garland actually would have been a nice return to that tradition, but we all know how well that went.
---

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

Corrik posted...

Can you imagine if Trump wins 2020 and Ginsburg retires also? Isn't another one up there?

The next two oldest judges are both liberals, with Ginsburg and Breyer.

Somehow Thomas is only 70. I thought that dude was closer to 80. He's the oldest conservative justice, and there aren't any others that are close.
---

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

red sox 777 posted...

They shouldn't take the risk of losing the Senate and that Supreme Court seat. Holding it open would encourage Democrats to vote too.

It didn't last time! At the very least, it encouraged Republicans more.

And, at the same time, they don't risk that. It isn't a real risk. Worst case scenario for them is like 51 senate seats. Best case could be like 56. I think holding it benefits them more, but of course I could be wrong. Like I don't see it being able to hurt republicans in any way because worst case scenario is they get the nominee they want anyway. If Dems keep all their conservative seats, those are the guys who work with Trump anyway AND they'd still have a majority anyway. There is no real risk to them here.
---

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

Lightning Strikes posted...

Americans, please inform me:

Shouldn't the role of the court be to make impartial decisions based on rule of law? So having a system where you can theoretically overturn that law by appointing people of certain political leanings seems... Bad.

The issue is no one is a robot, and no one is apolitical.

Judges do a better job being impartial than most, I think, and even the justice I have the least respect for is obviously a strong legal mind. The issue comes from even if they aren't thinking about things in terms of "oh this will benefit republicans", they will frame things as "this is how I interpret the constitution, which is very conservative, thus the decisions I come to will benefit the republicans even if perhaps that isn't my true goal". Like even if you give all the Supreme Court justices the benefit of the doubt, the fact that some are more conservative than others, and Republicans will nominate a very conservative judge, will have consequences in their decisions.

There is debate between even the top legal minds about specifics about the law and the constitution, and as such they can overturn or affirm policy which has significant political ramifications.
---

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

Eddv posted...

I think its so he can bandy about '2 republican justices appointed' as a republican accomplishment ahead of the election.

This is definitely true, but I think the fearmongering over the stolen seat worked really well to turn out the vote last cycle, and I honestly think scaring Republican voters into "vote for our candidates or those evil Dems will block our nominee" will probably get a larger turnout than "hey we already got 2 seats aren't we doing a good job!"

I could be wrong though, and you may be entirely right. It doesn't really "matter" either way because like I said, even if the Republicans do terribly they'll still control the Senate.
---

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

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-justices-were-bffs-this-scotus-term/

Interesting article in light of Kennedy's retirement.

Kennedy's percentage of similar opinions in this calendar years decisions with the other judges:
Roberts: 91%
Thomas: 83%
Alito: 82%
Gorsuch: 82%
Kagan: 72%
Breyer: 70%
Ginsburgh: 70%
Sotomayor: 66%

He is much more conservative this session, which could just be based on the cases they saw or it could have to do with him becoming more conservative over recent years.

Kennedy to Roberts as the swing is not as significant a change as I expected. Of course, the stolen seat of Garland to Gorsuch is what is really hurting. And if Ginsburgh dies, the Republicans may hold an iron tight majority for the remainder of our lives.

So yay.
---

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

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1012037565925298176

This actually seems like poor strategy. Part of the reason McConnell's decision to block the last SCOTUS nominee was so devious was that in brought out republicans to vote who may have stayed home otherwise. "Oh jeez if we don't win guys we'll lose this seat wink wink." I feel like if they did the same thing here, it might swing several key senate seats.

Then again, the risk is that it implodes and they still don't do well in the elections. But I think even worse case scenario, Republicans have 51 senate seats and a bunch of moderate democrats that have shown willingness to work with Trump in the past. I don't see the benefit to rush to confirm here.
---

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

Oh shoot is this starting already?

Uh switch me to replace then. Did not think sign ups would fill out within a day.
---

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

Hi.
---

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

Jakyl25 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

And the source of this number appears to come from noted intellectual and rational person Steve King.

https://twitter.com/letsgomathias/status/1010211124090998792?s=21

This week Rep. @SteveKingIA said he doesnt want Muslims working at meatpacking plants. Last week he promoted a Nazi on Twitter. He still hasnt deleted that tweet. Hasnt apologized. No one is calling for him to resign.

Steve King is for sure a real problem, and he has been a problem far longer than Trump

I think you know I was being sarcastic, but just in case I want to emphasize that I know Steve King is a horrendous individual and was the voice for white nationalism in the GOP long before Trump came along.
---

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

Grand Kirby posted...

turbopuns2 posted...

Pokemon Yellow/Red Any% Glitchless 2 Games 1 Controller (MeGotsThis)

That sounds super unimpressive. Two controller setups seem better with action games.

From what I understand of Pokemon Blue/Red 100% at least is that a lot of the movement is really important for RNG manipulation and pulling off certain glitches. I'd imagine that would still be hard for two people to do at once, although I agree that an action game would be more impressive/fun to watch.
---

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

WOO

My favorite gaming holiday.
---

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

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/radleybalko/status/1010265100375207936?s=21

Trump yet again citing made up racist murder stats.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/06/22/

(space)

the-original-source-for-trumps-claim-of-63000

(space)

-immigrant-murders-bad-data-from-steve-king-in-2005/

And the source of this number appears to come from noted intellectual and rational person Steve King. It is so surprising he would get something like that wrong.
---

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

HaRRicH posted...

6/21/2018
TWITTER - Contemptor (analysis and criticism of media, pop culture, and politics)

Fox News' Rachel Campos-Duffy: "I spoke to some African-Americans who say, 'Gosh, the conditions of the detention centers are better than some of the projects that I grew up in.'"

*VIDEO OF CLIP*

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheContemptor/status/1009995576241545217

Wow.

A take so hot it could light a cross.
---

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

Some weird groupings in the last two Supreme Court rulings.
---

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

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/doug-jones-thinks-hes-supposed-to-be-here/

Heres what I think is a really good article on Doug Jones.

Fantastic read. I'm not holding my breath about his chances in 2020 (it sucks he wasn't up again either this year or 2022), but he sounds like an incredibly qualified individual and I really appreciate his approach to moderation.

Yeah, sadly, he is probably more qualified than even most other Democrats, but being from Alabama (particularly in a presidential election year) against a non-pedophile candidate, he's doomed. He might keep it within like 10 percentage points, maybe, but he has zero shot of holding on to his seat.

The thing I found particularly crazy was "I would've done even better if it wasn't for the scandal!" I don't know if he genuinely believes that, but that's banana cuckoo nutso crazy talk.
---

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

Kenri posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/doug-jones-thinks-hes-supposed-to-be-here/

Heres what I think is a really good article on Doug Jones.

Interesting read. But also:

"Ill tell you what really gets me politically are the people who are disingenuous, who will pander, who are intellectually dishonest just to try to get a vote, he said.

that's literally his entire strategy, how can he possibly be annoyed by it

I guess what specific examples have you found of him that you believe to be pandering only to get votes? I'm not saying your wrong, it jus never struck me as true (or more true than in regards to other politicians) for Doug Jones.
---

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

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/doug-jones-thinks-hes-supposed-to-be-here/

Heres what I think is a really good article on Doug Jones.
---

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

Pennywise
---

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

I am MI.
---

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/unite-the-right-organizer-gets-approval-for-rally-anniversary-event-in-

dc/2018/06/20/597a1b1a-74a7-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html

Some very fine people planning a little get together.
---

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

Jakyl25 posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/politics/peter-fonda-baron-trump-secret-service/index.html

I want to condemn these words by Peter Fonda

Highly, highly inappropriate and disgusting.

Wow what a well adjusted and not at all crazy person.
---

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

Oh dear.

GOOD LUCK IGCD!
---

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

Oh man. Dreamgoddess. Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long time...

Initially she was just kind of bad at mafia. Which, fine, a lot of people were. She would post long paragraphs of things only tangentially related to the game, thought everyone was out to get her, and would post nonsense like "well he's 70% town and 60% scum so that means he's town". She loved that percentage thing and would do it every game, for all the players, sometimes three or four times a day.

Then she started becoming unhinged. I think she had some bad experience with men in the past and always interpreted the slightest criticism as a sexist attack and proof men were out to get her. She was survivor one game, claimed it in her first post, and then when we lyncehd her two days later for being survivor she absolutely lost her mind. It didn't help that ulti would play routinely during that time, and the two of them would take over entire topics arguing. And not like "you're dumb" "no you're dumb" kind of stuff. Like "I am going to stick a pineapple up your ass and the world would be better if you killed yourself" kind of stuff. This would go on for literally pages, and you couldn't convince either of them to shut up. They derailed entire games that way. Chris, who was her last defender, finally kicked her out of even his games when she completely ruined a fun set up he put together by doing this.

Corrik, because he was a crazy person (also him and dream were in love and don't let him tell you otherwise) invited her back on CE games when we went over there for a while. Corrik was her like second most hated person, not because he was vicious like Ulti, but because he's just very direct and DG took this as a personal attack on herself. Like he was just being Corrik, but she would lose her mind.

In one game, they were scum together. She was a scum usurper. Corrik figured it out like immediately. Like within two posts. And when he called her on it and ultimately stopped her from achieving her win condition, she threatened to murder him.

Not an exaggeration.

Corrik thought she was usurper, which she WAS, and she was so mad at this she threatened to go to his house in real life using real details which everyone knew about him, and told Corrik she was going to murder him. It wasn't joking, either. She was either serious, or wanted Corrik to be afraid like she might actually do it. Again, not because Corrik was mean to her or tormented her or anything like that. But because he thought she was usurper and she was.

Someone reported her and she got banned.

It was bonkers bananas crazy and I hope she finally got some help. Because she had serious issues that needed to be addressed.
---

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

I DIED BEFORE I GOT MY ROLE BACK

IGCD YOU STONE COLD BASTARD

I literally got into the game and got kicked out of the game before I read my role.

<3 Leo
</3 IGCD

*Poof*
---

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

Yo I got a day vig shot and I still don't have my role.

Best Mafia Game 2018 confirmed.
---

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

Is it too late for an in?

Damn like a minute late.
---

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

It was totally reasonable on your part to do so though since I responded to you there! If anything it was the better option than taking over Chris topic.

So yeah I shouldve just dropped it >_>
---

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

Nah dont blame yourself puns I shouldnt have responded because I was afraid it was going to spiral again.

So, sorry!
---

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

This isnt even what this debate started as and it is beyond a waste to talk about this as Id never even use survivor and IGCDs games would have like ten other things crazier in it for balance issues.

So.
---

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

I believe you to be incorrect.

But Im not rehashing the debate. Ill go back and read your post and you can read mine and well call it a day and save ourselves some time.
---

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

And puns your argument was the game wasnt over because survivor can side with town. They cant.
---

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

Like there is no difference between scum outs itself and survivor is forced to side with them and just skipping the formality imo.

Which is why mylo is moved up a day with survivors regardless.
---

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

Meow1000 posted...

turbopuns2 posted...

Boo ya, score one for LOGIC AND REALITY

Yeah you've read absolutely nothing directed at you. No one said that during DAY is an auto scum win except for you.

Nice selective listening.

I did!

Because of the way I word my win conditions. I do it intentionally to skip the formality of what Chris says.

(Although I just wouldnt use survivor tbqh)
---

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