Deleted User

Despite the fact that Kasich has won Ohio, unless the Establishment can really bypass the will of the people, it's going to be Trump or Cruz. I did some math to show just how crappy the current delegate system this is. I'd wager that the majority of people who did not vote for Trump would not vote for him under any circumstance matched up against any other GOP candidate. With only 37% of the popular vote, he could very easily become the nomination with a mere 40% while 60% want absolutely nothing to do with him. The whole winner take all business is ridiculous. Take for example Missouri while it's not completely winner take all, Trump got 37 delegates to Cruz's 5 (with 10 more still to be determined based on voting districts). He only beat Cruz out by 0.2% in the popular vote. That's messed up.

I think I've alluded to before, the problem isn't tax rates, in fact increasing them is probably going to have a negative effect. Little known fact, the United States already has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We just have so many loopholes that the super elite can take advantage of and small business owners don't have the resources to benefit from. I think the tax rates can stay the same as they are now, we need to close the loopholes above all else. Big companies are much bigger profit margins and are less likely to have to lay off employees from paying higher effective tax rates.

I don't even think Obama is going to 'end the country'. That was just a joke more or less. But we can not afford to keep mounting this crazy debt we've piled up which is now approaching $20 Trillion, nearly doubling during Obama's tenure. This is not only on Obama but also congress. We need to cut spending across the board. There are so many wasteful programs in the government that hardly anyone ever talks about.

RIP America

Reset Jeri

Will continue later.

The thing about back channels being dead, that's all on you. If you don't want them to be dead, then start joining them. Swimming even added autojoin commands so that you're added each time you log on the server. The only downside is that they need to be re done every couple of weeks upon server restarts. But the notion that it's a meaningless argument because they're dead is ludicrous. Instead of complaining about them being dead, do something about it and be there to make them less dead. It's hardly different from the backchannels in Pokemon Online so the only ones you have to blame for that are yourselves. Borderline comments are allowed. We'd prefer you don't go out of your way to force fringe comments, but if it comes up rather naturally in conversation so be it. Not every single thing that's said needs to be followed up with a "kinky" and in turn a few minutes of conversation on the matter in that same direction. We're not saying you can't make comments that are borderline, but to not let them dictate the conversation for any extended period of time. IF an auth thinks it's going to far, please understand and be cooperative rather than arguing and acting oppressed. You still will not be warned if you are mindful of such. In short. Try not to needlessly force Rule 7 ish comments into each and every conversation. Do not drag on conversation of Rule 7 ish comments for an extended period of time If you feel like having longer conversations about such, use the Abyss or another backchannel. If any of you want to continue being rude to the auth, say it to me. I'm quite frankly tired of and appalled at the way some comments have been made towards the other auth in light of our request for you to be more mindful of such things.

Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow 5

Have no fear, for a user we all know and love is on the queso! With Episode 16 inching closer and a bit of a staff shortage he will once again be crunching the reports and sour-creaming the troublemakers. Whether the work is hard or soft, whether there's beef to be dealt with, it's nacho problem. We've been as slow as the tortilla lately, but adding this hare will lettuce deal with problems in a more timely manner than ever before! I can vouch that he does not just talk the talk, but he does in fact guac the guac. If you haven't figured it out by now, Tacos is making his return as a Global Moderator, cool beans! You're all invited to the Fiesta!

Trump was not robbed of the right to speak tonight. He chose not to speak for fear of his own well being. Harming Trump is not their right no matter how much any of those protestors disagree with him. I'd like to know if there were any immediate threats made known to Donald and company prior to the event, or if it was just speculation by Trump, his team, and the secret service. If there were, then Donald was threatened and those responsible should face punishment. The ruling on the right of free speech is null at the point of imminent lawless action. This includes threats of violence, or the intent to incite violent acts from others. If there was no such threat made, then he just got stage fright, but in all honesty I don't think that to be the case. Protesting is one thing, making threats of violence is not ok. Before you go spewing your holier than thou mantra about how Trump supports torture or warfare, every single candidate in this race does in some form or another, it comes with the territory of being a politician. Is it justified or not? That's for you to decide and a whole different argument which truthfully is more a philosophical one than a political one. Note: Trumps says "I didn't want to see anyone get hurt."

Dimension W hasn't caught my interest so far. Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash has strangely enough.

I'll address the rest of your post later on, but you obviously don't get what I'm saying. I don't disagree with the ruling. The reason it should not have been made though, is quite simple. The role of the supreme court is and always has been specifically to interpret the constitution. The issue of same sex marriage is NO WHERE specified in the constitution, therefore it is not their duty to make such a decision. Enacting nationwide same sex marriage to be legal is akin to writing legislature, something which is left to... y'know the legislative branch, not the JUDICIAL, not the EXECUTIVE (as the Obama administration might have you believe), the LEGISLATIVE. By taking this power out of the hands of the states, the Supreme court is going beyond their boundaries and enacting legislation across the country. The 'Conservative' Justice which voted with the 4 liberal ones was Kennedy. Who's consistently been the swing vote, and relatively moderate voter. The Supreme Court has had unwritten guidelines that it should have 4 liberals 4 conservatives and the moderate likely swing vote. Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas were the conservative justices. In the past, presidents I believe certainly tried to maintain this balance in order to preserve the will and integrity of the people in a sense. It's certainly not appalling, I just believe in the foundation that this country was built on, the constitution. Which does appear to hold much weight compared to personal opinions in today's modern society.

I'm not responsible if someone decides to end their own life. It's not equality, I know that, but if someone is really going to end their own life because they can't have a piece of paper to validate your love for another, then something isn't quite right in the head. Intolerance and shaming are the real heart of the issue that usually lead to such actions. “It's an universal law-- intolerance is the first sign of an inadequate education. An ill-educated person behaves with arrogant impatience, whereas truly profound education breeds humility.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Trying to regulate or shun people into a state of tolerance is ineffective and not genuine at best. There are some who are beyond the help of being educated on matters. What you can do is teach as many as possible with even the slightest bit of an open mind how they are mistaken over time. If you belittle people for their ignorance or bigotry, they are far less likely to learn and take it to heart. I myself had prejudice and misconceptions regarding transgender individuals for I came here to Reborn, but I was proved that my views were misguided. Not through forced acceptance but rather with example and stories that were completely different than what I'd believed to that point in time. I doubt I would have come to change my views if I was yelled at about matters. I've already said I would support an amendment to the constitution to legalize same sex marriage nation wide, but until then I'm not going to budge on the foundations of how this nation was built. If my 'friends' aren't okay with me thinking the way I do, then I don't need them as friends. If something such as that is enough for them to despise me, then I welcome it. As for the matter of guns, the biggest issues we need to tackle to stop gun violence are mental health and culture. People going off the deep end and growing up in cultures that welcome violence over working hard are huge issues. Additionally, I would support a motion to make crimes committed with a handgun also accountable to whoever the registerred owner of the gun. i.e. if you leave it out for someone who shouldn't be able to access it or be stupid and sell it to someone who uses it for crimes, then you will receive the same criminal punishment as the offender who used the fire arm. I do -not- support limiting magazine capacity or specific types or firearms, the constitution does not have clauses in the 2nd amendment saying 'unless this' or 'but that' no, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If someone is a criminal or mentally unstable this no longer applies. While I would personally say that any business should be permitted to discriminate and bigoted for any reason they so choose, I'm NOT going to propose that this is actually brought to the table as potential policy. Any religious institution should have the right to refusal to perform ceremonies for a homosexual couple if it is clearly stated in their respective official doctrine that it goes against their religious belief. There are non religious affiliated ways to be wed, and you'll even find some churches that will perform the wedding regardless, but there is a deliberate separation of Church and State. The First Amendment states this for two reasons. In order to prevent the intervention of religion into politics, and to prevent the intervention of politics into religion. Many conservatives, not myself, are strongly Christian and often do let that steer some of their social policies, I'm not fond of this, rest assured. See the comments on 'Bipartisanship' and why I support Cruz above. If you and those who you support are unwilling to compromise, then why should I throw away all of my views to yours? If you won't budge, then neither will I. You have to give some to get some, and since it's clear the left doesn't actually intend to surrender any ground then there is nothing to talk about and 'compromise' on. Bonus piece: Why is Trump's campaign not imploding and actually going strong? That's relatively easy, watch this 2 minute video and anyone who doesn't understand the viewpoint of Trump supporters. (I'm not one)

There weren't really any that I could find about Cruz on those two places I'd looked. I would have otherwise. You're welcome to check there as well if you'd like. You won't really find anything. If I wanted to make a post that wars propaganda I would have only posted Bernie and Hillary. http://politicalmemes.com/ https://www.facebook.com/ThePoliticalMemes/ There are certainly some with him in them, but nothing that really goes after him specifically. '3 blind mice' is one you could go with if you need to have a token Cruz meme to meet your quota.

I'm washing my hands of this thread, so those of you who still want to discuss the topic at hand, try to reel it back in. We've collectively managed to meander too far.

That's not even my ideology, it's how this country is. The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court DOES NOT WRITE LEGISLATURE. You're for abortion. How many lives is YOUR ideology worth?

The supreme court had no right to make that decision. It is NO WHERE specified in the constitution whether or not same sex marriage is or is not allowed, therefore it is in fact left for the states to decide. That said, I would support a prospective amendment that would enable same sex marriage, which would in turn allow it. The problem I take with the progressive left, as well as much of the conservative right is that they feel they have the right to force their viewpoints on all. The majority of morality points in the election are as such, not specified in the constitution and should be left to the states. Why do I support Cruz? Because I'm tired of the 'bipartisanship' in Washington in which it's all take take take take by the progressive left, and any time conservatives try to hold any ground on any issue and not just give in to the left, the media paints conservatives as these heinous beings and many REPUBLICANS give in. (Republican =/= conservative anymore) I myself am agnostic, but I support Cruz despite his religious beliefs. I'm tired of this one way bipartisanship which has been going on for the past 10 years. Cruz has and will stand his ground and say enough is enough.