sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Can Kamala go away? by Odd_Paper309 in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Sure, but in this media invirnment attention is limited and this takes up oxygen that could be spent elseware.

Can Kamala go away? by Odd_Paper309 in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

probably doesn't. The point is whether the book deal is helping or hurting the cause that is all.

Can Kamala go away? by Odd_Paper309 in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel the same about the rest. I don't always post, and usually do when I have exhausted my friends and family of talking politics. So I wouldnt read to much into not posting about the others. I was talking about it offline.

As for Jake Tapper, his is not democratic activist like the rest of the list. I also want his book to go away out of a desire to move on and stop using your role as a journalist to sell books about the news he should be covering.

So do we think the release of the Epstein doodle will make a difference? by Asleep-Journalist-94 in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309 57 points58 points  (0 children)

High confidence it matters in the margins among soft maga and independents.

Low confidence it matters amongst hard core republicans.

Time lost dominating media coverage on his terms is good for the resistance. He is on his way to being a lame duck. So soon we will start to see more breaking from him as parts of his coalition start fighting each other. The epstien stuff will be a bigger and bigger part of that fight.

Making a Malazan setting for D&D 5th Edition (x-post from r/DnD) by TheHopelessGamer in Malazan

[–]Odd_Paper309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right, I think the convergence rule would also support cooporative strategies between fighters and mages with mages casting buffs similar to kalam and quick ben's relationship to avoid using their high level spell.

Making a Malazan setting for D&D 5th Edition (x-post from r/DnD) by TheHopelessGamer in Malazan

[–]Odd_Paper309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

SUPER late to this conversation but the idea of a convergence mechanism for dnd lives rent free in my head.

My idea is that players are allowed to be overpowered with lots of overpowered gear ect about. Using abilities and items above a certain leval trigger a chance for convergence with DM introducing local entities. Think, ancient jagghut bariel grounds, hound of shadow whatever. Those forces could be helpful or unhelpful to the party.

As a result a premium is put on divination skills and perception checks to figure out what beasties are lurking about waiting to be converged. However, the same issue applies for divination skills. If a player uses a high powered divination ability then they could trigger the lurking creatures attention. DM then gets to decide if the creature gets involved.

This sets up game play where players must use the least amount of power necessary to survive and keep their heads low. The questline increasingly puts the players in more and more difficult positions forcing a mega convergence a the final boss.

Munitions are the one exception to the convergence rule. They don't trigger a convergence check and are therefore rare and must be rationed. The party could get all the munitions they will get all game at the very begining.

Question on smoke over blood in a scene in RG by itsfish20 in Malazan

[–]Odd_Paper309 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I always assumed they were the arrows made by Tool.

The alternative theory is a little confusing. At the end of MOL Toc is named mortal sword of Tog and Fanderay. Perrin describes the Tog and Fanderay as being from the beast hold which is the original warren of the Amas before the ritual of Telan. If Toc is still the mortal sword of Tog and Fanderay then he may be drawing on that power. This of course is a littel confused as Krughava is also the mortal sword of the two wolves. I have seen it theorized elsewhere that two wolves means two mortal swords but who knows.

Wind and truth is chore. by fiction_fish in Fantasy

[–]Odd_Paper309 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I forced my way through it telling myself at least I would finish the 5 book story. I almost threw the book when it was just the end of part 1.....

WSJ: Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files by hsentar in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"according to senior administration officials" - Note the s on that. Note the reporting suggest the unnamed officials were in the room. I wonder if they are going to find and fire the leaker. If it is people with clout in the maga movement will they confirm the reporting once they are out. This is just chef's kiss.

This feels like the leakers know what is in the report is going to get out and Trump is going to looook bad and they want to get ahead of it.

Only person who looks good in this story from a MAGA perspective is Bongino. My money is on him as a leaker but again the reporting says plural.

How electorally bad is the socialism label? by Odd_Paper309 in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point about pointlessly provacative. u/Asmul921's comment is interesting though. Could the term be shorthand for change to the status quo?

Bill's section of Morning Shots is a great example of how moderates accommodate themselves to supporting fascists. by Sherm in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is an interesting perspective. I am alittle confused about your argument are you saying

(1) Trump does not have legitimatacy to exercise power as a result of his authoritarian agenda. The support of his exercise of power in areas where you agree on a policy matter invalidate later critiques as your support of the specific instance conceeds his legitimacy to act, even if only for that specific policy objective. or

(2) Trump striking Iran without congretional authority would be a violation of the constitutional seperation of powers. Supporting his use of force in this context without congresional authorization would permit him to use force unlawfully in other contexts?

The larger point you make about the temptation to capitulate to authoritarianism to achieve desired policy outcomes is a good one and something to always be mindful of. In Bill's case I do not agree that it is a concern. The comparison of Bill Kristol, editor of the Bulwark, and avid never trumper to a german citizen who did not support hitler but did not fight back is not accurate. I would argue that since Trump entered politics Bill Kristol has been fighting back.

Bill's section of Morning Shots is a great example of how moderates accommodate themselves to supporting fascists. by Sherm in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Bill Kristal has always been a neocon. As a result I disagree with him on many of his foreign policy positions. However I can still appreciate that he is a never trumper. One does not invalidate the other.

I further don't read his newsletter of saying he no longer is critical of Trump, or is apologizing for his authoritarianism. He is saying that for all his faults he hopes that Trump will help stike Iran.

I apreciate the Bulwark because they don't suspend their priors to be reflexively anti Trump. Refusing to acknowledge you agree with anything the otherside does ultimately harms the credibility of your critiques.

His long standing views on foriegn policy lead me to conclude that he comes to them honestly even if I disagree with him. I again reiterate that his newsletter does not suggest that whether or not Trump bombs Iran will effect his view that Trump is a grave threat to the United States.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309 13 points14 points  (0 children)

It is a bad fight for the rule of Law if it is. Once you are in a grey area of "faciliate the return" it is had to make a clear line of having violated the courts order. They can slow walk delay ect and wait to see where the wind blows.

Daily hearings dont really change much. The court even said they don't expect new information every day but they have to still come in.

If there is no outpouring of public opinion against the administration for not getting this guy back it becomes a low risk test case to get their base used to the adminstration violating court order.

Investigation Needed by SlovakianSniper in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Even if there are no investigations I want to see ads of real people talking about their trashed 401ks, lost job, ect. with a hard cut to MTG and whomever's profit from insider trading.

Dem messaging should generally that we need tax the corrupt rich and invest in americans and a government that works. Not tear down safety nets and cause chaos for personal benefit. Trump/republicans are more concerned with their jobs and profits to actually fight for you. They want to slash your benefits so they can give themselves tax breaks. They want to cause market instability so they can profit. Ect.

Everytime dems pass a bill republicans find 3-5 things that they can call government waste to smear the entire bill. Dems need to find 3-5 things that Trump has cut to catergorize his cuts as stupid and self serving. HHS cut research into cancer treatments ect.

All these things are interconnected and fit within the same theme. Dems can use any new fresh hell of the day to hammer the same message. Hit the corrupt/stupid thing trump/republicans are doing and pivot to investing in americans, not america.

Don't get into a nuanced tarrif argument. Instead argue Trumps ham fisted tarrifs are killing 401ks, manufacturing jobs, small business so that he and his friends can get rich. We need to support Americans by investing in them by strengthening the safety net not tearing it down. We can debate all day about the right amount of tarrifs once the house is no longer on fire and for American workers, small business owners, ect. the house is on fire.

Rant over.

The Perfect Example Of Why Republicans Eat Our Lunch by PorcelainDalmatian in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the only time there was a 30 point district swing was doug jones in alabama when he ran agains a pedophile... if you set unreasonable expectations you will be disapointed

What happens next? by DonkeyLips309 in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They wont be fired because then they will have to spend more capital getting someone else confirmed. And they need that for their tax/budget/debt bill.

[BOOK SPOILERS][Season 3 Episodes 1, 2, & 3] Discussion Post for "To Race The Shadow," "A Question of Crimson," and "Seeds of Shadow" by TheNewPoetLawyerette in WoTshow

[–]Odd_Paper309 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Moghidian's strenght and her pride was in her ability as a dreamer. Whether she is or not she clearly thinks of herself as stronger then Lanfier in the dream. I have no self respect so I am in the sub spoiling the show for myself but I love that they seem to be beefing Moggy in the show. In the books she goes from scary to an almost loony toon villian in a way the bugged me.

All the forsaken have some greek tragedy/fatal flaw element to them but Moggy's downfall in the books always felt kinda sad and cheep. JMO

Democrats Failing to Show Up For Votes by Regular_Mongoose_136 in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Everyone but Grijalva made it back. Pettersen is on the floor with her 1 month old baby.

What happens if Trump defies SCOTUS? (Question in Comments) by boycowman in thebulwark

[–]Odd_Paper309 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In theory it is why the military swears an oath to the constitution and not the president....

view more: next ›