Lord Raven

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Lord Raven

  • Rank
  • Birthday 11/17/1992

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
  • Location
    Ellicott City, Maryland

Previous Fields

  • Favorite Fire Emblem Game
    Path of Radiance

Member Badge

  • Members

Recent Profile Visitors

14072 profile views
  1. General US Politics

    (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. 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? 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. General US Politics

    Forcing media to be nonprofit is one way to go about it. 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.
  3. General US Politics

    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.
  4. General US Politics

    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.
  5. General US Politics

    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
  6. General US Politics

    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.
  7. General US Politics

    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.
  8. General US Politics

    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.
  9. General US Politics

    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.
  10. General US Politics

    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.
  11. General US Politics

    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.
  12. General US Politics

    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/)
  13. General US Politics

    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.
  14. Berwick Saga Translation (Beta Patch Out!)

    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.
  15. Berwick Saga Translation (Beta Patch Out!)

    He has; he just hasn't made a formal announcement.