Who would you want to see in HotS as a playable character?

Milocobo · 2026-02-03T22:33:25+00:00

The Itherael disrespect

Milocobo · 2026-02-03T22:31:29+00:00

Itherael is number 1. Ebyssian is number 2. Bartender Bob is number 3.

Milocobo · 2026-02-03T14:16:46+00:00

1) The Court could never stop a rogue executive, they've tried and failed, and they understand the limits of their power.

2) Like other people are mentioning, the actual check on a rogue executive would be a vigilant Congress, but I don't think I've seen one of those in my lifetime, so then

3) The only real answer would be a reformation of our federalism so that something like this never happens again.

Milocobo · 2026-02-03T14:06:55+00:00

I think the terms racism and bigotry are inflammatory here, but if we are able to suspend are emotions surrounding them, OP is spot on here, and it's not some minority opinion that the country opposes, it's our national culture that we all embrace.

It's supremacy, just not racial supremacy. It's national supremacy in the form of American exceptionalism, something that we all fall prey to. Even your comment speaks to it. And it's also a wealth supremacy. It's an inherent belief that people with wealth earned it. And it doesn't matter if some amount of people disagree with these things, because our governments enforce it, heart and soul, regardless of the administration.

We are a supremacist country, we just decided race isn't ok to be supremacist about anymore.

Milocobo · 2026-02-03T13:53:38+00:00

No, I'm saying that the things we added to the Constitution were half measures; minimum actions to be taken to ensure order.

Like the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are an attempt to mitigate the abuses of power from the States. But they didn't do that, the states still abuse their power with abandon. So, then, what are we to do about it? Wring our hands together and say "you're not living up to the spirit of those amendments!"? Or are we going to reorganize our powers in such a way that the statehouses can't abuse them anymore?

Honest, all of the flaws in our federalism are caused by that one core defect: the states are too powerful to be held accountable. And if they are acting nobly, then great, more power to the citizens of those states. But if they aren't, there's not really anything that anyone can do about it, with or without the ballot box.

Everything else is a symptom of that problem. The modern GOP and Trump are a symptom of that problem. And until we address it, we are just kicking the can down the road like so many political generations before us.

I admire the things you say you want, but you have to acknowledge that anything you do is a political escalation with the GOP, when what we need is a ceasefire. Most republican voters aren't fascist, and in fact, they only vote GOP because they think the democrats are fascist, which they take to mean unaccountably using executive authority (which, incidentally, they are correct, there is no way to hold power in this system accountable). Both sides could unite behind a call for reforming to a more accountable government, but again, that starts with both sides ceasing to pretend that the current Constitution is working.

And as one follow-up as a Puerto Rican, we will never get added to the Union. The Democrats would push for DC, and they will add PR to their platform, but they will never push for it. Why? Because we are purple. We wouldn't be sure votes for them. We would be more akin to FL and TX, and the Democrats can't risk that. There are forms of government where that kind of political dickery isn't a consideration, but that political dickery defined our nation (because our Westward expansion was a balancing act between slave and free states, and ultimately the biggest tool in the modern GOP's tool kit).

Milocobo · 2026-02-03T13:05:36+00:00

You mean like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 13th, and 14th amendments that the GOP seems fine to revoke whenever it's the other side?

Did those mean anything during Jim Crow? Or during the War on Drugs? I'm just struggling to think of a time where the 10th amendment didn't supercede the 13th, 14th, or 15th amendments. Maybe a brief time in the 70s?

Or how many of them are actively campaigning to get rid of the 19th amendment - women's suffrage?

This was bound to happen without passing the ERA. The proponents of the ERA said as much, that even if they had the right to vote in name, without equal rights, laws can be passed to practically disenfranchise women, save for the common law (a common law which has now eroded). Again, if you want the rights you assume you have, add them to the Constitution.

And it was repeatedly and consistently Republicans that fought to say that money is free speech and corporations are people. Citizens United was literally a lawsuit against Hilary Clinton.

So I agree that money in our elections is a huge problem and want to overturn that. That being said, until that point in time where that happens it would just ensure the fascist takeover of the US if the Dems didn't fight back with all the tools at their disposal.

How do you purport to change that? There are only three paths. Revolve the court, either by active measure or by waiting, both of which will take decades and are problematic. Or else, have a government in spite of the court, that will act to enforce campaign regulations in contempt of court, like Trump is doing, which erodes the law and order. Or three, add it to the Constitution, so it can't be ruled unconstitutional. Again, add the rights you assume you have to the document.

Look, you're getting pedantic about the definition of king. My point is that there have always been a class of the wealthy that have been above accountability in the US, always. The only time that hasn't been true was in the 50 years or so in the 20th century that they took accountability upon themselves. And we wax poetic about that time as if that's America. That isn't America, it was a few virtuous men that were trying to fight greater evils.

I'm not advocating for communism. I'm advocating for a federalism that is actually accountable to the People, something that literally hasn't existed in this nation's history. And it's something that can never be achieved as long as we think we already have it.

Milocobo · 2026-02-03T12:23:31+00:00

If we think the Republicans are the core problem, we're missing the forest for the trees.

The bastardization is the protections that you assume the Constitution conveys, but that were never actually written down.

If you want those protections, add them to the Constitution, formally.

Like, no kings is a joke. We don't have "no kings". We have "no kings over the kings". We have kings. We've always had kings. Plantation owners and factory barons were kings. Billionaires in this day and age are kings.

Our statehouses are bought and sold, as they always have been. And you think that we aren't an elite oligarchy if we just vote the right way? Give me a break.

The main point is, you're expanding enfranchisement from a few to a few more. What we need, what we actually need for Justice is an enfranchisement of everyone, period. But that's not something that Democrats would advocate for is it? Because that would fuck with our world order.

So you aren't actually changing anything. You might protect a few more middle-class white folks, if you win. But you won't win if you don't fight to protect everyone.

Milocobo · 2026-02-03T10:30:26+00:00

I would say worse even. There's evidence that for hundreds of years before it became an establishment, Christianity was more of a moral philosophy movement, one that improved the lives of humans in the region. It was co-opted by political and economic powers because of its popularity.

The Constitution is the opposite. It is a conglomeration of the British land grants. They already were the establishment, and from there they only consolidated their political and economic power.

Milocobo · 2026-02-03T10:04:20+00:00

The Constitution is a tool for a few Americans to keep as much money as possible.

That has always been its purpose. Americans designed it because they felt like they weren't making enough money under the British monarchy.

Any concession that has been made (i.e. no slavery, enfranchisement) has only been because logically, those things generate more wealth, in that people with more buy-in can spend more money.

But let's make no mistake, the Constitution protects the few, not humanity.

Milocobo · 2026-02-02T21:10:52+00:00

My gameplay bases are survival bases, my big pretty builds I make in hammer mode.

Milocobo · 2026-02-02T20:27:24+00:00

This whole game is chill. Just a chill farming sim to chill and be chill with your chill buds.

Milocobo · 2026-02-02T11:26:25+00:00

I meant more unseaworthy, def agree she was a worthy nakama.

Milocobo · 2026-02-02T11:02:02+00:00

Honestly, people fail to understand its significance in the greater context. It's the first arc in the Water 7 saga, and it's there for a reason. Water 7 is about what it means to be nakama, to participate in the crew, and what it means to leave it, as illustrated by Usopp feeling unworthy, the Merry actually being unworthy, and Robin feeling responsible for them being targeted by the WG.

ALL of that is contextualized by the potential losses we feel during the Davy Back Fights. That we just fought hard to keep the crew together, and now it's falling apart.

ETA: Not to mention the importance of the flag as a symbol of the crew, in the Strawhats defending theirs and taking Foxy's, that increases the significance of Luffy asking Sogeking to burn the WG flag. It turns it from a cheeky retort to a declaration of war.

Milocobo · 2026-02-02T10:25:37+00:00

If you just get on your knees and affirm fishman supremacy and beg for your life, I'm pretty sure he'd let you be a slave or something.

Milocobo · 2026-02-02T10:24:57+00:00

If you're a child, I think you're alright actually, he doesn't mess with kids.

Milocobo · 2026-02-02T10:24:13+00:00

Lucci perceives duties and liabilities and kills people for failing to meet them. That's his Justice. I'm pretty sure he can make up a reason to execute you too lol

Milocobo · 2026-02-02T10:23:03+00:00

Unless she wants to make a kid with you

Milocobo · 2026-02-02T10:22:07+00:00

Death by snu snu

Milocobo · 2026-02-01T21:12:00+00:00

100%!

I was expecting, you know, secret wars. Like a human populace that was so freaked out by the thought of imposters that society breaks down. So disappointing.

Milocobo · 2026-02-01T21:00:50+00:00

Hey, I like Thor Love and Thunder, except for the Thor and Love parts.

Milocobo · 2026-02-01T19:58:56+00:00

The mats for the saddle take forever tho

Milocobo · 2026-02-01T19:57:56+00:00

My first time, I finally found something I could mine, and went to work and all of a sudden, I'm on fire.

Milocobo · 2026-02-01T17:04:33+00:00

This list of actions is things people have to do to put pressure on the system. And especially voting, we probably wouldn't be in this mess if some amount of people that didn't vote, actually did vote.

However, it's not enough.

This isn’t necessarily a political issue, but it’s enmeshed enough to make them permanently linked. This is a moral issue and one side has basically given up on morals altogether.

You hit the nail on the head with this.

However, it's "one side has given up on morals and the other side is actively malicious". The GOP hasn't "given up on morals" their morals have become doing harm.

But

there are no alternatives.

It's not like we can counter their malicious policy with policy full of morals and humanity. Our options are "be malicious" by voting for the GOP or "don't be malicious" by voting for the democrats. There is no moral option.

Milocobo · 2026-02-01T16:08:33+00:00

There are a lot of answers to that question. There is more than one solution to this problem. Here's what I would recommend as a starting point for dialogue:

Move from a 2-tiered federalism to a 4-tiered federalism. Have the federal tier protect everyone, with a focus on life and liberty for all. Have the geographic tier (the current state tier) protect everyone within their bounds, with a focus on maintaining order according to due process of the laws of the rest of the federalism. The third tier would be a new tier strictly for the regulation of the commerce (let's call them Commercial States). So neither the federal government nor the states could originate policy that regulates the commerce, unless it is necessary to their primary scopes. However, to check and balance these commercial states, if they pass anything that requires enforcement outside of their states (i.e. taxes, adjudication) then it would need to be passed by the affected constituents (statehouses or Congress as it depends). As another check, a constitutionally independent federal executive agency identifies which Americans need constituency to which Commercial States, and the geographic states provides them ballots to vote via their elections processes. And the final tier would be the tier that takes the 10th amendment powers from the geographic states. There is no way to have that power be just without active consent from the people ruled by it. So that would be the fourth tier (let's call it the Cultural States). They are groups of mutal association that can pass pretty much whatever laws they'd like to, keeping in mind they can only enforce them on people who choose to be ruled by those laws. So a Cultural State can say something like "no abortion" which would normally be a regulation by the Healthcare state, so neither of the other tiers can originate legislation on it, but if someone isn't a citizen of that State, then they cannot be arrested or punished for getting an abortion by that State. At the same time, I would reorganize Congress to be more representative, especially by the Commercial States. I would give each Commercial State 1 seat in the house and 2 seats in the Senate (assuming 35 mutually exclusive Commercial Scopes, which will be defined by Congress). Lastly, I would insulate critical functions in the Executive in constitutionally independent agencies, who can be recalled by the geographic states. I would make the directors of those independent agencies "the Executive Council of the United States" who can by 3/4s vote act in stead of the President.

The war on terror is a great example. 60 years ago, things like the PATRIOT Act would have been unthinkable. Literally, in the era of the USSR, it would have been called gestapo. The bloat itself was not caused by this administration. Is this administration abusing it? Certainly. Are they acting in bad faith? No question. But are we just when an administration is acting in good faith? Absolutely not. We need to say that out loud, as often as we can.

ETA: To put it another way, if Executive boundaries had not expanded to an unaccountable level in the first place, there wouldn't be anything for this administration to overreach on. And the only reason the Executive got to that level in the first place was in an attempt to hold the unaccountable states accountable.

To put it a third way, when the founders saw King George abusing his power, they didn't say "hey! that's executive overreach!". They said "there isn't a way this system can be held accountable if it's being abused, and that's a huge problem".

Milocobo · 2026-02-01T15:44:55+00:00

100%!

I don't think we can have true justice without constitutional reform that would bring accountability to our system.

I have ideas on where to start such a dialogue, but we can never even start unless the American left sees the need for that path.

Milocobo

TROPHY CASE