lemonmelon @ lemonmelon @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

321

Joined

1 yr. ago

Bullets named "service" and "the draft"?

This is the original game. Settlers of Kalguur is the newest league (think "season") launching at the end of this week.

PoE 2 goes into early access sometime later this year, whenever that is. Regardless, they'll be two distinct experiences, with many players planning to devote some time to both.

If you're interested in starting PoE, my general advice is that the best time was yesterday. In this case, with a new league starting this week, I'd still encourage anyone to play around in the non-league standard just to get an early feel for things before Friday. PoE has a notoriously steep learning curve, so it's never too early to log a few hours and experience the opening acts.

Cal comes to mind... and that's the only one that I can immediately think of.

Edit: looked it up: LBJ, Harry S Truman, Cal, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Buchanan, and James K. Polk. So yeah, really short list.

He's not even on the ballot in Ohio. A candidate hasn't been chosen, so if they resort to any fuckery there it could be an attempt to keep the Democrats from having a candidate on the ballot at all.

I'll indulge you one more time in this comment chain.

Or is this one of those situations where you think the world runs on "should" and not "is?"

If I were as inclined to feign offense, I'd cite this as an implication that I'm someone who cannot differentiate reality from fantasy. Some might even call such an implication a thinly veiled insult, but only if they didn't intend to throw rocks before hiding their hands.

Instead of interpreting it in such a way and clutching my pearls about it, I chose to meet you with the same energy.

Your point regarding the communities you moderate is 1) irrelevant and 2) not a road worth going down, regardless. It's at best an attempt at a flex, and does not belong in this conversation.

Back to the actual matter, every statement you've made in these comments, barring your most recent response, absolutely exhibits a dictionary definition defeatist viewpoint. Why take umbrage to having it pointed out as such?

This marks the end of my engagement with you in this chain of comments. Any further responses you make are for your own gratification.

I responded to you in kind. If you consider that insulting, then examine your own contribution.

You've graciously answered my question by way of your response. Thank you for that. I wish you the best in your march into defeatism, and sincerely hope you'll refrain from dragging others along for the ride.

Then it's option two for you, is it? The one where we allow bad actors to dictate because we believe they won't play fair?

If that's the case, you don't have anything to worry about because all is already lost. "Despair is a narcotic. It lulls the mind into indifference."

Or is this one of those situations where you've already seen that you're wrong, but you're too stubborn to admit it and compulsively need to have the last word?

I addressed what you're alluding to. Second paragraph, third sentence. If we reach a point where precedent doesn't matter regarding eligibility, all bets are off anyway.

I said nothing at all about how the courts would rule, only that we have prior examples of how eligibility has been determined.

If we want to talk about a sane world where rules matter, the question is settled. If you instead prefer to lament the possibility that those rules will be ignored, twisted, or rewritten, then it logically follows that any candidate will be subject to bad faith jurisprudence. At that point, all bets are off anyway, and the "question" of AOC's eligibility as a candidate has no bearing.

Fret and panic if you feel that it's your best course of action, but poisoning the discourse with that sort of nonsense is counterproductive.

The three basic requirements are clearly laid out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither the 14th or 22nd Amendments apply.

It's cut and dried, with precedent. There is nothing remotely questionable about her eligibility. If the concern is that the opposition party doesn't care about precedent, then the rulebook is completely tossed out anyway and we're dealing with a different conversation altogether.

Anyone pushing the narrative that she does not meet the basic requirements is either engaging in pointless hand wringing, expressing ignorance about the requirements, or actively spreading a falsehood.

Sifl & Olly

You know what your problem is? You don't have chicken-flavored air conditioning.

Or you might not be.

AOC is eligible. She would meet the requirements set forth in the Constitution at the time of her inauguration.

People continue to spread misinformation about her eligibility.

You're misinterpreting the simplified version of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. I don't know if it's by way of malice or of ignorance, but the end result is that you're confidently wrong.

The requirements set forth in the Constitution say nothing about any arbitrary cutoff date to gain ballot access. Don't believe me or the Constitution?

How about The Hill:

"First: Yes, she is old enough to run. The minimum age to be president is 35. Ocasio-Cortez will celebrate her 35th birthday roughly three weeks before Election Day 2024."

Or maybe you will believe it from Oliver Willis:

"Can she run? AOC was born on October 13, 1989, which would make her 35 years old on November 5, 2024, which will be election day. To run for president, the Constitution requires a candidate to be 35 years old or older. AOC would be constitutionally eligible to run for president in that year."

If those don't tickle your fancy, how about Fox News:

"However, Ocasio-Cortez would be eligible to serve as president or vice president in the 2024 campaign cycle, narrowly making the age cutoff. She will have turned 35 by Inauguration Day on January 20, 2025."

If you still need further sources, maybe ABC can provide both information and precedent for you:

"Does the age rule apply from election day, or inauguration day?

It applies on inauguration day — which these days is usually January 20, in the year following the election.

That means a candidate can campaign in a primary race, be nominated as their party's candidate, and even be elected to the presidency at 34 years old — as long as they'll be 35 by the date they take office.

Back in the 1972 election, one virtually unknown Delawarean senator-elect reached this age minimum by the tightest of margins.

Joe Biden was 29 when he was elected, and had just turned 30 by the time he was sworn in."

She's eligible, and you're propagating a lie whether you intend to or not.

So you find it acceptable throw a tantrum about humor and memes while tossing around terms like "cheetolini" and "drumpf"? Do you see the inherent lack of consistency involved?

Can we put that misinformation to bed, please? Her birthday is before the election, which by definition is before inauguration day. Unless you think she's going to suddenly Benjamin Button, she meets the qualification.

It's disingenuous to say Newsom is only known in one state. He's the governor of a highly populous state who has already explored a presidential run. That's essentially equivalent to saying that Abbott or DeSantis aren't nationally relevant. Disliking the idea of that being the ticket that the Democrats trot out is one thing, I'm certainly not on board with it either. Dismissing it on a false premise is something else altogether, and it's not a helpful narrative.

Even having had time to prepare for this, and knowing it was essentially inevitable, this feels heavy in a way that I'm not sure how to express yet.

It's in the context of someone moving the conversation from "a cannibus overdose is impractical as a means of execution" to "there is no such thing as a cannibus overdose".

Do you ever get tired of huffing your own farts?

"You see, Joe, the numbers don't lie. And they spell disaster for you."