• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next
  • 0

    posted a message on MWS AER Patch?
    It works, awesome thank you! Smile
    Posted in: Third Party Programs
  • 0

    posted a message on "What Deck Should I Play" thread
    Hi guys,

    I'll be doing modern side events at GP San Jose in 2 weeks. BW Eldrazi processors or Dredge with Golgari Thug? The former was my original deck choice, but the last few weeks indicate there might be a window where Dredge can win. My logic:

    1. Fatal Push does nothing to dredge, but encourages the type of decks that Dredge preys on. Less aggro because Black-based midrange will be running push, which means more decks like Tron. The meta should be friendly for dredge.
    2. The GGT ban will lure everyone into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take out their SB graveyard hate.

    Thanks Smile
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on MWS AER Patch?
    Does anyone have the patch for Aether Revolt? Much appreciated, thanks! Smile
    Posted in: Third Party Programs
  • 0

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor
    Quote from D90Dennis14 »
    No, it just goes to the GY.


    Has anyone tried a B/G version of the deck ?
    I'm in process of trying different color combinations and having access to Ancient Stirrings and Abrupt Decay seems very good.

    Here is my idea:


    Dryad Militant is both decent as early pressure and provides more fodder for proccessing.

    What do you think ?


    I swapped out the Militant for Scavenging Ooze and Decay for Go For the Throat (I don't own any decays). I'm only on initial testing, but it's surprisingly solid. It plays closer to Bant Eldrazi than BW. Might want to consider some Noble Hierarch or Birds of Paradise for Bant's speed.

    Of course, if we do that, why not just go Bant Eldrazi at that point? I think the discard of black makes it worthwhile. Discard alone makes the deck feel more proactive. Plus we can experiment with Lilianas (both LOTV and LLH). And collective brutality is still a beating for burn and infect.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on US Election Day and results thread 2016
    Quote from Glamdring804 »
    Quote from magickware99 »

    Actually not trying to be cute; just finding it difficult to believe that 4 years of business as usual will mean death. I think you're being overly dramatic.

    Trump has already said he is going to ignore the Paris Climate Accords, which are a comprehensive start to the work we need to do to save the ecosystem. The Paris Accords need to be adhered to by every nation with any industrial development for them to actually be effective. If an economic powerhouse and supposed "world leader" decides it's not going to pull its weight, then every other nation on the planet has the grounds to pull out of the accords as well. Once Trump gets out of office, it won't be as simple as just "Okay, he's gone, let's reinstate the accords." He will have already done irreparable damage to the agreement, and put us back at square one. He has the potential to not just delay the desperately needed mitigation of the climate catastrophe, but actually set us back several years or even decades.


    Trump came out to CA once back in March or April. His visit drew two different reactions (just hearsay from people I know):

    Liberals - He says there's no drought here, what an idiot!
    Conservatives - He's right, Democrats value fish over people.

    That's the problem with the climate change argument. If you focus on polar bears, coral reefs and endangered species, the blue collar workers in Wisconsin and Ohio don't care. They think you value fish over them. Instead, connect the environment to things the average Joe can relate to. Hammer home what lack of regulation can do to clean water, like Flint Michigan.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on The Modern Price Discussion Thread
    Quote from Stoogeslap »
    Scrying Sheets is on the rise... is there some deck using it from a recent event? Or is it just speculation or a deck article?


    Skred Red won GP Dallas. It runs two.

    http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpdfw16/top-8-decklists-2016-11-06
    Posted in: Market Street Café
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Surging Chaos »
    Quote from magickware99 »
    I think this current election cycle is proof that-

    1- The overall system works.
    2- The Republican Party needs to die and rise from the ashes to form a new party that will shed itself of its white nationalist elements, accept that social conservatism is dying, and attempt to take from the Democrats its more moderate parts and prevent the rapidly strengthening liberal elements of the Democratic Party from eventually hijacking the Democratic Party in the same manner that the white nationalists hijacked the Republican Party.
    Quote from Xeruh »
    Number 2 is what my political science teacher was predicting. Basically everything would lurch left soon in the political arena, although his prediction was more that the Republicans would basically collapse, Democrats take up the new right wing position, and a new left party would emerge. I'm honestly looking forward to a big shake up, the political system feels like it could use a hefty reform, this will help to accomplish that. I guess we will see what happens after the presidential election, but it seems likely something major will happen from here on out with our current parties.


    I've been thinking about this more and more, and I'm considering a situation where the Republican party doesn't collapse, but simply becomes a party that largely abandons presidential runs and focuses exclusively on congressional, governor, and other state races. Despite the dire straits the GOP is in right now, they still have a very firm grasp on governors, the House, and state legislatures.

    I do not see the Republicans winning another presidential election, ever. They are already at a huge disadvantage in the electoral college due to the blue wall to begin with, but the latest fallout from this year and last year in 2012 has shown they are going to be locked out of the White House for good. Consider states like Virginia and North Carolina; both of which used to be easy wins for the GOP, are no longer safe. The former has been cemented as a permanent Democratic stronghold and the latter is a now a swing state that is probably going to lean Democrat once the state urbanizes more. Colorado is the same issue as well; massive urbanization in this century turned the state solidly blue.

    And it just gets worse for them. Georgia is in danger of turning blue now. If that ever happens, the GOP is finished in the electoral college for good. Then you throw in TEXAS of all states, which Trump is just barely holding onto right now. I can definitely see a future where Texas becomes a swing state due to the increasing minority population and the amount of urbanization going on down there (see the pattern here?).

    Even if the GOP tries to make a concerted effort to purge the racist and social conservative elements of the party, they are going to have a massive push back from their voting base. "Trumpists" may not make up a majority of the GOP, but they make up a sizeable chunk of the GOP base that they simply cannot ignore for risk of losing elections left and right. These people reliably vote every election cycle (which includes midterms). Evangelicals also reliably vote every election cycle in addition to the Trump supporters. In the end, it's all about votes. That's why the GOP brought these people into the party after they signed a deal with the devil to implement the Southern strategy.

    The GOP is completely boxed in. They already can't win the presidency yet they feel complacent with winning downticket races. The underbelly of the party is harming them on the national stage, yet it is in their best interest to not completely cut loose those people because they need the votes. That's why the party is dying but also "not dying" at the same time if you can believe it.


    Losing Virginia and North Carolina this election isn't crippling, as Iowa and Ohio are leaning Republican more. Not a good trade, but the party can survive it. The real danger would be losing Georgia, Arizona, or Texas. Especially Texas.

    The simplest solution would be to find new or reclaim old voters. Muslims were once solid Republicans, but the anti-Muslim rhetoric has scared them away. Asians used to lean Republican, but the racism and the Putin love has scared them away. Hispanics could easily be part of the Evangelical bloc, but all the anti-immigration stuff is a line in the sand. The problem is, with the Trumpists, they've pushed away every minority voting group that would normally have voted GOP, but were driven away by the racism. If the party can eject the racists and begin marketing to the minority groups that are more conservative, they could pick up those groups again.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Gary Johnson
    Quote from Hellgrammite »
    So, let's all mock Johnson for "What's Aleppo?"


    Seems kind of stupid, as I doubt half the people mocking him on social media knew what was going on or where Aleppo is. Hell, the first several links if you google "Aleppo" mention Gary Johnson in the description :p. There are plenty of actual things to mock about Johnson.


    I would not necessarily expect a presidential candidate to know what Aleppo is, though it would be interesting if he personal knowledge in the area (visited there, was an ambassador to Syria...ect.)

    The actual president unlikely would know about Aleppo until their advisors bring it up. Then the president would ask where is Aleppo, what is the situation, and then figure out ways to handle it.

    Johnson made the mistake of acting like a human being, which is what presidents do behind doors. Asking a question to increase his knowledge. Too often we are used to politicians getting fed pre-determined questions, or giving vague answers to avoid discussion.

    I am not exactly the biggest fan of Johnson, but he have seen some of his interviews and has a lot of interesting points on multiple issues. The grievance here isnt that he didnt know what Aleppo is, its that the entertainment television (called news in America) finds a needle in a haystack, and declares the barn should be burned. I mean how is he supposed to know what Aleppo is when ironically the media focuses on stories like this!

    Johnson asking what is Aleppo is the most honest thing I have heard a candidate say so far this election.


    I liked his response to the "controversy." If a politican makes a mistake, this is the kind of response I want to hear, not Trump's doubling down or Clinton's lawyerism. He lost a few points in knowledge and foreign policy, but gained a few points in character. At the least, he didn't double down or deny he said it, so this should blow over in a week. Of course, with the debates this month, that might not be enough time.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor
    Quote from jayprev »
    I think it's keep, mulligan, keep, but that first one is a tough call. T2 removal if they're on aggro, then lingering souls spam into Sorin to catch up, seems reasonable if not great. Plus you have all your "colors" there.


    Agree. The first hand is the trickiest, because its great if you find the third land before turn three, but terrible if you don't. I would definitively keep it if I were on the draw, but being on the play makes it a closer call.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor
    Quote from deaddrift »
    A processors list--quite different from my version--took 9th at an SCG Open yesterday:

    http://sales.starcitygames.com//deckdatabase/displaydeck.php?DeckID=106581


    That's an interesting list. Things that stand out:

    - No reality smasher. Instead, three blight herders.
    - A single liliana of the veil.
    - A single collective brutality.
    - Two zealous conscripts in the SB? Are those suppose to be zealous persecutions?

    The collective brutality is especially interesting. Anyone tested that yet?
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 1

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    He's already moved to his next gaffe/controversial statement:

    Obama founded ISIS and Hillary Clinton is the co-founder.

    Yeah, its going to be like this from now until November 8 until his kids can inherit his money.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Magic Story Articles Discussion: SOI & EMN [No Spoilers]
    Quote from Tahn »
    I don't regularly post in this section but this story was awesome. The best I've read so far. Full of interesting developments: potential insight into what the Eldrazi are, the hook to several future stories about Eldrazi (not too soon, of course, we're all a bit tired of them) and Tamiyo's scroll. But also something I haven't seen mentioned here much, I think Liliana changed in this story, regarding her "deeper" use of the Chain Veil and her actually learning to master it. And what really struck me about that is that I think Liliana is becoming black-red. I felt the way her "new" use of the Veil was described had a lot of elements of red: rage, reckless abandon, happiness, and also short-sightedness (she revels in the power without realizing she will get tired). Some of the descriptions in the story to illustrate this point:

    Liliana's blood was on fire, her mind in shreds. One force kept her coherent—rage.

    Without conscious thought she drew deep on the power of the Chain Veil,

    somehow this time her rage inoculated her from the worst of the Chain Veil's injuries.

    This power. It is a revelation. All it had taken was Liliana's will. Her desire. For so long she had thought herself utterly pragmatic and driven to her cause. To not die. To kill her demon tormentors. But now she knew she had been unwilling to take that final step, to cross over the last barrier. I had restraint. How foolish.

    Liliana's scorn draped each word she thought back in reply. Do not seek to contain me with your small expectations, little man. Today is the day I destroy an Eldrazi titan. Why? Because I dare.


    I emphasized some adjectives/phrases that are typically associated with red. So I'm calling this now, next Liliana will be BR. Smile


    The first half sound like red, but the other half are very black.

    Desire - Black is about the self, so prioritizing desire is very black, even if red also values it.

    I had restraint. How foolish. - sounds red, but also very black. She's a black mage chastising herself for not using power because she was afraid the veil would hurt her. "Power at any cost" is very much in black's slice of the color pie.

    Why? Because I dare. - Black's philosophy has always been take what you want until something more powerful stops you.

    I think Liliana has changed in this story, but she remains mono-black. Where as before she was "go it alone" she now sees the Gatewatch as "better zombies." The biggest difference between red and black is that red actually cares about people around it. Black, being all about the self, only sees others as tools or obstacles. Her musings at the end reflect a black look on relationships rather than a red one.

    Liliana is still acting like a black mage, but a black mage seeking to manipulate others rather than being a loner. Which in some ways makes these worse - I don't think the others will take too kindly if and when Liliana decides they're no longer useful.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • 1

    posted a message on Magic Story Articles Discussion: SOI & EMN [No Spoilers]
    Quote from Jenrik »

    The theme between Emrakul and Lilliana was all about extending life and the prospect of death, or fates greater and worse than death. A damnation of sorts.


    There was a few sentences at the end that really played on that theme: "Sometimes our stories have to end. Yet here we are, each seeking to prolong our story, no matter the cost."

    Taken out of context, who does that describe most? Liliana. But Tamiyo was talking about the Gatewatch as a whole, the group who seek to interfere by destroying or imprisoning the Eldrazi. Nissa and Gideon don't trust Liliana, but Tamiyo notes that by seeking to save planes from the Eldrazi, the green and white mage aren't different from the necromancer they distrust. Surprised how deep this story actually is!
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • 0

    posted a message on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's Presidency Thread
    Quote from Tiax »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »


    The party is already split. Any speaker who so much mentions Clinton's name is getting booed off the stage at the convention right now. That includes Sanders himself! The current situation is untenable. The DNC has to do something dramatic and fast to get people back on board. Switching the nomination to Sanders is the only thing I can see that could reverse the current trends.



    So you think that having the party leaders unilaterally defy the will of the voters and put the candidate who lost the primaries in as the nominee at the last second would serve to unify the party and get people on board? Are Clinton supporters so weak-willed that they'll just roll over and accept that? If you think the anger of Sanders supporters now is untenable, just imagine the anger from Clinton supporters if your suggestion came to pass!

    This is completely delusional.


    The legitimacy of her victory is now being put into question by the scandals; that's the damage that's been done these last few days. I don't know how people can argue the "will of the voters" when these leaks completely undermine that her nomination was what the voters wanted.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's Presidency Thread
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    No, Blinking_Spirit is right; it would cause the democratic party to split at this point; it's untenable.


    The party is already split. Any speaker who so much mentions Clinton's name is getting booed off the stage at the convention right now. That includes Sanders himself! The current situation is untenable. The DNC has to do something dramatic and fast to get people back on board. Switching the nomination to Sanders is the only thing I can see that could reverse the current trends.

    Quote from gumOnShoe »

    Clinton is the candidate, and we have to somehow figure out how to deal with this perceived weakness, and that means figuring out what we're even supposed to be saying about Clinton; which continues to be a huge problem. Why are we, voters, confused about what the party line is on Clinton? Why isn't there any positive press, at all? Why is this campaign so messed up that they have no message control?

    If I had to point to any one thing that is problematic it's that. Just like in the republican primary, the only message getting through is the one about Trump be it positive or negative. His childish antics of name calling are for whatever reason working. Maybe it's just proof that our system was faulty and someone's finally figured out how to hack it. But we saw this coming.


    Yeah, I think Clinton was betting that Trump is so toxic that people would vote for her by default. As it turns out, she's reaching that rock bottom herself. "It's a race to the bottom and we have the fastest car."

    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Trump seems to have planned this Bernie split. He's been gunning for it for the last 2 months, trying to woo them, and now this wasserman crap drops out of the sky into his lap the day of the convention? It's too much to not believe something is going on here. Even if it wasn't the Russians and trump just hired a hacker.


    There's no doubt Trump wanted this, but blaming this on Trump or Russia without evidence is unproductive and makes the Democrats sound like Trump. Without evidence, casting blame makes one look like a conspiracy nutjob. Pushing the Russian theory makes Clinton look desperate and is potentially dangerous/reckless if we accuse another country of sabotaging our elections without evidence.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's Presidency Thread
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »

    Is there any chance that the delegates could revolt and Sanders could emerge as the nominee? At this point, that seems like the smartest move by the Democrats. Sanders might still face some obstacles, but the election would be a lot easier if Sanders were at the helm instead of Clinton. Trump might call Sanders "weak" for not going negative and for endorsing Clinton, but that's much easier to overcome than the apparent corruption Clinton is facing.


    No; there's no chance of that happening. Clinton's been a lock since Obama was elected. The rumblings have been there for years, and the stacked DNC is just further proof that the establishment was picking for the party at the beginning. Which is both understandable and sad. She did make it to a bitter finale with Obama, and she was neck and neck with him. By all accounts she should be popular right now if you looked at 8 years ago, but she's just not.

    Flipping to Bernie is not something the Democratic party should do. For one, the majority of democrats resoundingly said they wanted Clinton; for another, while Bernie advocates many policies that even I agree with, he's not leadership material. I voted for him in the primary just to keep issues in the ring; but he's no Warren or even Gore. He cares deeply for the poor and trodden upon; but he wouldn't be effective, and its hard to believe he could get elected.

    We're definitely stuck with Clinton at this point. But, even with all of the noise, the truth is that as a president she'd be at worst boring and most of her sins would be oversights (like this e-mail stuff). She'd be easy to paint as inept or cautious; but, she's not dangerous to have as a president. She's a capable administrator, she's on the right side of history, and while she's not inspirational, she has a good sense of international politics, even if she tends to be a bit hawkish; something we maybe need right now.


    Oh I agree that Clinton is far better than Trump, but I just don't think she has what it takes to beat Trump anymore, especially if there's a delegate revolt or riot this week. The WikiLeaks scandal and Debbie Schultz has called into question the legitimacy of the primary. Clinton can no longer argue that the majority of democrats wanted her when there are emails showing that the supposedly neutral DNC was in her corner. And while he might not be effective, he's certainty better than the orange monkey the GOP has put up. Its hard to believe a socialist could get elected in America, but Trump is a single election from winning, now leading the polls, and everyone had a hard time believing that could ever happen.

    The question to me isn't whether Clinton would be an alright President, I'm with you on that. The question is whether the Democrats could even retain the Oval office this November. Sanders might be their best hope for that now.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's Presidency Thread
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    Basically, Clinton is risking losing this election by being completely boring; I was worried about this. She couldn't stand up to Obama in the primaries where they challenged each other and she still lacks the authenticity. It's a huge problem because she's a better option than Trump, but I'm largely beginning to view this as a failure of the democratic party. They read huge support for Hillary 8 years ago, felt a debt to her husband, and essentially decided they'd follow up Obama with Clinton at that time, but they didn't pay attention to the changing political landscape or the fact that she wasn't a unifying character to begin with.

    It's ultimately a huge knock on the party that they let it go this far when they obviously have other people in the party capable of leadership and not one of them actually ran. Or, I'm misreading it and the Democratic party is heading for the same quagmire as the Republican party did and this is just the first shadow of it.

    Ultimately, we need boring old Clinton because Trump is crazy; but, not because any of us like Clinton. And that's a problem because if you can't get people excited you can't win an election. They won't come out to vote for you. The narrowing polls essentially tell us everyone pretty much hates their options, but sitting out and handing the country over to Trump is just an awful proposition.

    I continue to dislike my options; but, it's still entirely a mandatory vote. Least democratic election in history, for me. Vote between suicide and arguably corruption. ***** choice. Bottoms up.


    Is there any chance that the delegates could revolt and Sanders could emerge as the nominee? At this point, that seems like the smartest move by the Democrats. Sanders might still face some obstacles, but the election would be a lot easier if Sanders were at the helm instead of Clinton. Trump might call Sanders "weak" for not going negative and for endorsing Clinton, but that's much easier to overcome than the apparent corruption Clinton is facing.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from DJK3654 »
    Quote from DJK3654 »


    It's why it has not been answered or acknowledged. The argument from the other side is so wrapped up in the hatred of Trump, they've lost all perspective it seems. No one can claim I'm in the bag for Trump, I have serious contempt for the man.


    Quote from DJK3654 »

    Yes. But it is racist to assume that just because a person has that nationality, that will do more than just play some little role in their worldview but rather makes them incapable of fairly reviewing certain cases.


    Quote from Tiax »

    We've already all agreed that everyone's experiences differently shape their views.


    Hmmm... Yes, I can see all the ignoring of this point from opposing positions.
    Oh wait, people are agreeing with it.


    They have distorted or contorted the question to the point they are answering a different question, unasked question.

    I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENT ("a persons nationality impacts their decision making and attachment to issues"/"A persons ethnicity, nationality, or heritage can influence their thinking on a range of topics") ENTIRELY.
    Is that enough for you?

    You said "just because", which ignores that Trump's immigration stance may cause a Mexican to hold a grudge, at least in part due to the fact they are Mexican.

    No it doesn't. Trump's accusation is that the judge holds certain views because he is Mexican. i.e. The casual factor is being Mexican. The supposed bias is a result of dislike of the immigration policy, no? So it's all dependent on the Mexican part, everything else is one big result.



    Induldge me in one more answer:

    Is it possible a judge can be biased toward Trump in a seperate unrelated legal proceeding due to no other reasons than the judges Mexican heritage and Trump's inflamatory and repeated stance on illegal Mexicans?


    Racist comments can never be true, in any circumstance. There is a possibility Trump is right about the judge being biased.


    Is it possible? Yes. Is there evidence other than Trump's views? No.

    In fact, Trump is assuming that Judge Curiel is against Trump's immigration policy. The judge hasn't said a word about Trump's immigration policy or his wall. As I've mentioned before, Curiel's background as a drug prosecutor might in fact mean that he might be in favor of stronger immigration control. Judge Curiel could be biased in favor of Trump, but we don't really know what Judge Curiel thinks of Trump's campaign because he hasn't expressed approval or disapproval. My assumption is just as valid as Trump's "he's a Mexican and therefore against me and my wall" assumption because neither has any evidence supporting the premise.

    The only thing the judge has done is rule against Trump in a few motions, which have alternative objective legal rationales other than "judge is biased." There's a possibility that Trump is right. Given the lack of evidence though, the possibility is so insignificant, there's a better chance that Trump is a secret Clinton plant (not that I believe that conspiracy theory, but I wanted to highlight how absurd the "Judge Curiel is biased based on his heritage!" is)
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Darth Bunny »

    What is your definition of racism? It seems racist to me (and many others) that if someone says a judge is unable to perform his duties because of the judge's race/ethnicity/nationality, that's "textbook racism." Since you don't agree, what is a racist comment to you?


    If Trump said no Mexican could render a fair verdict against him, absent any other factor, that would be racist. There are outside factors at play that brings into question the judges heritage. A persons heritage can impact their feelings a subject.


    Fair enough. But I think it was possible for Trump to bring up those factors without bringing up that the judge is of Mexican descent.

    And those outside factors work both ways. Judge Curiel's Mexican heritage might be a potential bias against Trump, but Curiel's background as a former drug prosecutor against Mexican drug cartels also means that the judge could be in favor of some of Trump's policies. Not likely, but possible.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency

    EEK!

    I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt you that are not serious with this comment, becasue it's right down the middle and if I swung at it, I'd hit it to the moon.


    Half joking. Whether or not a party is a disgusting person should have no bearing on whether or not a judge can remain impartial. But it's odd to me that a defendant can make disparaging remarks about a group of people, and then uses those remark to comment about whether a judge is impartial or not. The judge himself hasn't commented on the wall or Trump's "Mexicans are rapists" statements.

    Well, they could, but it will not matter, unless the conflict is so serious a person can not be reasonably expected to render a fair decision. Trump obviously thinks this is the case, I'm reasonably sure it's not, based on my limiting understanding of the judges ruling. A conflict of interest is not inherently an indication of bias, but rather the potential for bias. Further, Trump, if he were to use that in an appeal, would have to prove that potential bias resulted in an unjust verdict. In other words, the judge could be biased but also render correct judicial decisions supported by relevant law and precedence. What Trump does not understand is, it really does not matter if the judge is biased, if the judges decisions are legal. Even if they were not legal, Trump could never prove the improper decision was a result of the judges potential biases, and it would not matter at all.

    Lastly on this point, just becasue the judge may have potential bias, does not necessarily mean he should have to recuse himself. Maybe some people are making this argument, but I'm not. I'm simply saying that Trumps comments are not racist, not whether or not the judge can render a fair verdict. Just because Trump is likely incorrect in his determination, does not make the comments racist.

    This same issue presents problems for black people in the legal system all the time. The appearance of potential bias, but no illegal or unjust verdicts, i.e. all white juries.


    Agreed, except for your conclusion.

    I agree, but it also does not mean the request or comment he made is racist, and that is what we are discussing.



    What is your definition of racism? It seems racist to me (and many others) that if someone says a judge is unable to perform his duties because of the judge's race/ethnicity/nationality, that's "textbook racism." Since you don't agree, what is a racist comment to you?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Say you were on trial for your life. Say you've made derogatory comments about a particular ethnic group, outside of this case. Say the judge is of that ethnicity. Say the judge ruled against you on several motions. Say you perceive the judge is being hostile towards you. Say you had the perception of injustice, or unfairness in regards to your trial. Would you not sit there and think about why you are being treated unfairly? Would you sit there and not consider whether or not the judge is biased due to your unrelated comments about his ethnicity? Would you think it impossible the judge is ruling against you on all those motions and being hostile to you, at least in part due to the fact he is of the ethnicity that you previously disparaged? I do not think any of you arguing against me would think it is impossible, and you would probably think its even likely. All of you would be racist despite making a perfectly reasonable and logical conclusion, however accurate it actually is. You will attempt to explain the unfairness you are experiencing. And the potential does exist for that judge to take offense at you insulting his ethnicity and make improper judicial decisions becasue of it.


    Well, most of us probably wouldn't make those derogatory comments in the first place, so it's hard to feel sympathy for a man who dug his own pit. Based on your own post, the only people who would turn to racism as a justification for conflict of interest are the people who were racist to begin with. So I fail to see how this conclusion would be reasonable or logical to begin with. Parties lose motions and trials all the time; its fully possible that the judge is ruling against me because the law is legitimately not on my side. (By the way, this is not the trial of Trump's life. The trial is after the election, so the trial has no impact on whether or not Trump wins or loses this November.)

    And why would I assume a judge is unfair to me because of a few motions that didn't go my way? If there is an independent objective justification for those rulings aside from race, that's more than sufficient to defeat an allegation of bias based solely on nationality. Also, the most important motion, that the trial be postponed until after the election, was decided in Trump's favor. And there's more than enough evidence to suggest that there might have been fraud (employees testifying they thought the school was a scam; training material full of shady instructions), so no objective person would dismiss the case on summary judgment.

    You're still trying to assert that a judge could be bias against a party because the party made derogatory statements about the judge's nationality. But while the probability is there, asking a judge to recurse himself based merely on that probability does not rise to the level of a conflict of interest.

    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »

    I assume it's this:

    1. Turn out the white working class vote
    2. Use this group to win the swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania
    3. Hope that Democrats are too depressed by Clinton to show up at the polls

    Of course, this plan depends on Hispanics not showing up in record numbers to oppose him and Trump holding all the states that Romney won in 2012. But with so many traditional red states, like Utah, being so close, even winning battleground states might not be enough if Trump loses an otherwise solid Republican state.
    Actually, what I meant was how is Trump going to get 270 votes in terms of states. Like, which states are supposed to get him there?


    http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map/combinations.php?party=Republican&num_rem=79&st_remain=FL,PA,OH,NC,VA,WI,CO,IA,NV,NH&me=&ne=

    It looks really hard for Trump to win without Florida. If I were Clinton, I'd focus most of my attention on the sunshine state.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from Crashing00 »

    I'm done tolerating this idiotic rhetorical bull*****. This isn't even a straw man; a new word would have to be invented to adequately describe how far away from any position I've actually expressed this is. Show me where I said this, or else retract it immediately.
    Rolleyes http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/685637-sjw-just-a-pejoritive?page=2

    ------

    Quote from Grant »
    Oh, come on. Some of them, I assume, are good people.
    Masterfully done.

    Anyway, let's talk numbers: what is Trump's path to 270? Does he even have one?


    I assume it's this:

    1. Turn out the white working class vote
    2. Use this group to win the swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania
    3. Hope that Democrats are too depressed by Clinton to show up at the polls

    Of course, this plan depends on Hispanics not showing up in record numbers to oppose him and Trump holding all the states that Romney won in 2012. But with so many traditional red states, like Utah, being so close, even winning battleground states might not be enough if Trump loses an otherwise solid Republican state.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Why are family members of victims not allowed to sit on juries of the perpetrator? Trump is the perpetrator and the judge is in the family of the victims, The family is all Mexicans. Now, Mexicans are a much broader group than immediate and even non-immediate famiily to where this conflict of interest is largely mitigated, but the personal connection exist and could influence a Mexican judge.

    True or false?


    False.

    1. Mexicans are not all family with one another - I think even Mexicans would find that statement absurd.

    2. The judge is an American. Calling him a "Mexican judge" only proves that Trump is the one who is biased.

    3. The "victims" in the case are not the Mexicans that Trump has insulted. The victims in the case are the the students of Trump university, of which the judge has no relationship with. The entire allegation of conflict of interest rests on the judge being part of a racial/nationality that Trump has insulted and threatened. Could there be a potential for bias? Yes, like 5%, but that doesn't even come close to the level of bias necessary for a conflict of interest to arise.

    Trump is grasping at straws in an attempt to shift the conversation from "Did Trump commit fraud?" to "Is the judge biased?" Pretending that Trump's allegations actually have merit is an insult to the intelligence of the average voter.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Collective Effort (Chinese)
    Quote from Darth Bunny »

    Also, white hasn't always been Tier 1. During Lorwyn, white was so bad that there was only one white card in a GP Top 8 - one oblivion ring in a sideboard. We joked that Doran, the siege tower was a good card that was balanced by needing white mana. Your argument sounds like pure emotion based on current standard without looking at historic trends.


    You want historic trends? Here, let's pull up the Way Back Machine and look and what you could do with Green and/or White.
    KTK/BFZ standard: GW Collected Company, Abzan Aristocrats, Abzan Rhino Midrange.
    THS/KTK Standard: Abzan Rhino, Jeskai Prowess, GR Atarka, G/W Manifest (almost forgot this!)
    RTR/THS Standard: Esper Control, Abzan Constellation, GW Aggro, Mono-Green Devotion, GR Ramp.
    INN/RTR Standard: Resto/Thrag + whatever else you want, Naya Humans Aggro.
    SOM/INN Standard: WB Tokens ft. $wagtusk, Abzan Birthing Pod, Solar Flare
    ZEN/SOM Standard: Caw-Blade, Valakut, Dredgevine, Temepered Steel
    ALA/ZEN Standard: Jund

    Okay, that's 6 standard seasons spanning almost 7 years that Green and/or White has been a major player in Major decks. I could take it further back if I wanted to, but I think I've made my point.


    Perhaps I worded it improperly. thememan said G/W was strong going back to post-Urza, which is far too long a period to claim that G/W has dominating. Certainty recent sets, going back to RTR at least, has favored white and green. But I played standard beginning from Odyssey block up to Time Spiral block and I remember people complaining that fact or fiction, teachings, dragonstorm, faeires, or whatever the latest blue deck was, was OP.

    For me, its a recent trend that GW has been so strong, but it makes sense given wizard's emphasis on creatures and depowering of spells/removal and cards with drawbacks.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 2

    posted a message on Collective Effort (Chinese)
    Quote from thememan »
    Quote from savedsynner »
    Could not agree more. Blue makes sense kind of because people complain the most when counterspell magic is strong. Red really throws me as its the easiest to learn and teach new players. Black is more advanced but is the "cool" color where you get to do really cool things at a cost to yourself....why isn't black that color anymore. Would a "BB pay 5 life destroy target creature or planeswalker" really destroy standard.

    Seriously, when was the last time white was a bad color. Its has always been in recent memory either been good on it's own or part of a 2 3 or 4 color tier 1 deck.

    I don't think you can say that about any other color, especially now since u/r is easily weak and not even a support color in a much played deck. Basically what wizards needs to do is get rid of all these splashable spells and go back to printing 2 and 3 single mana symbol spells that are more powerful that their generic mana opposites to insentivise players to go mono color something. Basically, devotion should always be a mechanic IMO.


    The dirty little secret is that Blue and Red are rarely every particularly strong in standard, and when they even approach being one of the stronger colors it is often considered a mistake.

    Keep in mind that both Green and White have had a continued existence in Tier 1 decks for almost the entirety of Standard's existence going back to Combo Winter and Urza's block (And were quite often the *strongest* color by far). Neither Blue nor Red can even come close to such a claim, and yet people say "It's finally time for Green and White to dominate". Which is a ridiculous statement. Green and White have always been good choices for standard, and at times were the *best* choices you could make. Red and Blue rarely every get to shine, and when they do people find it offensive.

    What a load of wash.


    ...What?

    Combo winter and Urza block was all about blue. Academy, morphling, mind over matter, time spiral, and dream halls were all blue. And those decks were oppressive; they could win in the first few turns of the game. Let's not forget Caw-Blade and Jace, the Mind Sculptor. Dragonstorm was a U/R combo deck that made Wizards regret reprinting dragonstorm. Red has shown up in almost every standard as either a burn deck or an aggro deck (except, most notably, this one). Also, when Theros and Mono-Black Devotion was the king, G/W was hardly dominate.

    Also, white hasn't always been Tier 1. During Lorwyn, white was so bad that there was only one white card in a GP Top 8 - one oblivion ring in a sideboard. We joked that Doran, the siege tower was a good card that was balanced by needing white mana. Your argument sounds like pure emotion based on current standard without looking at historic trends.

    Anyway, about this card - seems balanced in a vacuum, but it helps the G/W token decks just by being another anthem. Also, tapping a creature is nothing if a token deck is cracking out 3-4 creatures a turn, so the other options are relevant. Certainty hurts those demonic pact/harmless offering decks people are trying to build.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Mothership Spoilers 7/4 - Liliana and her Oath
    Quote from Nayenyezgani »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    Quote from Nayenyezgani »
    Quote from jesselloyd »
    Except modern decks with Islands in them. New Lilly plays much better with Snapcaster and counter-magic.

    One interaction I see coming up is of how tough a position your opponent is in if you have a flash creature in the yard. They can either play their creature now only to have it invalidated (or killed) by Lilly, or you get to restock a flash threat and pass with counter mana available.

    People are way under estimating her. The bottom line is that most of the time, you are going to untap with her after you cast her. Eventually she can draw you cards or pigeonhole your opponent.what more do you want from 3 mana?



    I'll take your word for it, I only play Jund in modern. Her abilities are soooo narrow and they do little to nothing against combo and control.


    Against, combo, sure new Liliana will be a bust. But control? You don't think returning 'goyfs and dark confidants every other turn isn't useful? Unless they're exiled of course...


    You can only minus 2 once when she is played. It would be impossible to do that every turn. I think most of you people need to go back and read the card again.


    [Emphasis in bold mine]

    I did say every other turn in my first post without editing it. There's no need to insult others - especially when you misread what other people are typing.

    But to Liliana, every other turn might still be powerful depending on the game state. If both decks are in top deck mode, a raise dead the next turn might swing the game around. Of course, that's a lot of "what if?" so new Liliana might not be modern material, but she'll probably be a staple in Standard - if not this one, then after rotation.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Mothership Spoilers 7/4 - Liliana and her Oath
    Quote from Nayenyezgani »
    Quote from jesselloyd »
    Except modern decks with Islands in them. New Lilly plays much better with Snapcaster and counter-magic.

    One interaction I see coming up is of how tough a position your opponent is in if you have a flash creature in the yard. They can either play their creature now only to have it invalidated (or killed) by Lilly, or you get to restock a flash threat and pass with counter mana available.

    People are way under estimating her. The bottom line is that most of the time, you are going to untap with her after you cast her. Eventually she can draw you cards or pigeonhole your opponent.what more do you want from 3 mana?



    I'll take your word for it, I only play Jund in modern. Her abilities are soooo narrow and they do little to nothing against combo and control.


    Against, combo, sure new Liliana will be a bust. But control? You don't think returning 'goyfs and dark confidants every other turn isn't useful? Unless they're exiled of course...
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 2

    posted a message on 8Rack
    Quote from MemoryLapse »
    Nephalia Academy isn't exactly discard hate. You deny them resources when a card goes on top of library.


    Legacy pox player here. I've been testing the academy against my deck since it was spoiled. There's a hidden drawback to it; if the academy player uses it too often against mass discard like 8 racks, they will be limiting themselves to the same few cards every turn. So they will literally be drawing the same cards over and over again if they don't choose to discard it. At some point, that will suffocate them out of other cards and it will be worse than if they discarded the card instead of returning the same cards to the top of their deck over and over again. The best use of the academy is to protect key combo pieces or bombs against duress effects. I think this will hurt Jund more than 8 racks.

    Edit: Anyone remember chittering rats? Ask any pauper player how annoying the rats are. The academy turns all discard into potential chittering rat effects. Weaker than actual discard in some situations, but stronger in others. If the academy player doesn't think about whether to discard or put back on top, the academy can backfire on them.
    Posted in: Modern Archives - Deck Creation
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from HolyJello »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    So, on the topic of things relevant to Trump as president and not whether his supporters who post on forums can construct an argument....

    The big thing going on now: Trump University Fraud. "A mexican judge can't be objective" ~ Trump (Paraphrased by me)
    I get that trump's not a nazi, directly. But, this certainly feels in the vein of their politics. A national party trying to run on racism? **** That.


    Even if the whole thing wasn't built on racism (it is), the logic behind his attacks makes me cringe. Here's my fleshed out summary of Trump's arguments:

    1. I'm building a wall
    2. Mexicans hate the wall
    3. Judge Curiel is Mexican and/or associated with Mexicans
    4. Judge Curiel is against the wall
    Conclusion: Judge Curiel is unfair to me

    Individually and together, the premises don't work and the conclusion they're suppose to lead to is just as absurd. I'll skip over #2, as it's somewhat true, even though Trump himself claims that Hispanics love him and that Mexico will pay for the wall. Why would they pay for a wall they hate? But lets accept that for the moment:

    Premise #3a: Judge Curiel is Mexican
    Judge Curiel's parents were from Mexico, but he was born in Indiana. Even if you dislike the concept of "anchor babies," he is still legally a U.S. citizen and thus is an American.

    Premise #3b: Judge Curiel is Associated with Mexicans
    Trump supporters have made a huge deal about Judge Curiel's association with La Raza. Notably, there are more than one "La Raza" group. Judge Curiel belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyer's group, a subchapter of the larger La Raza Lawyers of California. I've personally attended a couple La Raza meetings at my own law school - they are networking groups who talk about mentorships and professional relationships between lawyers. There's nothing political, let alone insidious, about them.

    The only thing suspicious is that they share a name and a link on their website with the National Council of La Raza, which is known to be a political advocacy group for immigration. But think about that for a second; people are okay with condemning a judge for being associated with a group by association? The group Judge Curiel is part of is accepted by almost every law school in the country and probably has numerous judges in its membership. It would be one thing if Judge Curiel was actually part of the NCLR, but he's only associated through another group, and only through the weakest of ties - one web link. If anyone seriously thinks a court would overturn a ruling or recuse a judge based on this, they probably don't have much understanding of how the courts work.

    Premise #4: Judge Curiel is against the wall
    This is the unspoken assumption that Trump makes. "I'm building a wall" ----> "Judge is unfair to me" only works if you assume that Judge Curiel is personally against the wall. In fact, Judge Curiel hasn't said a word about the wall.

    There are judges who are outspoken about Trump's proposed wall though. Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court constantly makes fun of Trump on Twitter, including his wall, which Justice Willet has compared to the Death Star. Apparently, Trump doesn't think Justice Willet is biased; Trump proposes putting Willet on the U.S. Supreme Court! The main difference between Judge Curiel and Justice Willet is that the former is sitting in an actual case with Trump as a party while Justice Willet is not. If Judge Curiel were making Willet level tweets about Trump, an argument about bias might be appropriate. But just ruling against Trump is not a justification enough for claiming that the judge is biased.

    As I've said, Judge Curiel hasn't breathed a word about Trump's wall. However, Judge Curiel was a drug prosecutor who put Mexicans in jail for smuggling drugs into the United States. One could argue that Judge Curiel has done more to improve border security than Trump has to date. I could argue that, given his background and career, Judge Curiel might actually be in favor of increased border security. Trump is inferring that Judge Curiel opposes the wall based on the judge's parents and membership with an attorney group. Not the strongest of evidence to make that inference, especially when other parts of the judge's background could make one believe the opposite.

    Trump's Conclusion: Judge Curiel is unfair.
    As I said, Trump's whole argument is based on "I'm building a wall" ----> "Judge is unfair to me." Fact of the matter is though, a judge can hold political views different from the parties and still be non-biased with regards to the case before him or her. If Trump really thought the process is unfair, his lawyers could make a motion for recusal. The fact they have not suggests they realize this is a frivolous argument.

    No, the real reason Trump is spewing all this nonsense is to distract the public. Think about it: the question is no longer "Did Trump commit fraud?" Trump has shifted the discussion to "Is the judge biased?" There's no evidence to suggest it and Trump's own lawyers haven't done anything to show that they believe it, even though they've had years to do it. This is yet another publicity stunt to divert attention to a more comfortable topic for the Republican frontrunner.


    1) Even IF Trump did commit fraud, it is a penny in comparison to the mountain of fraud by HRC. Antihero vs Villain.
    2) "Mexican" is not a race, therefore discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the Mexican culture is not racism. Lo siento. "American" is not a race. "Brazilian" is not a race. "English" is not a race. "Egyptian" is not a race. "Indonesian" is not a race.
    3) The judge IS biased. How do I know? Because everyone is biased. But "bias" is NOT the central question that Trump has raised.

    "On a case by case basis, I will remain vigilant of my obligation to be fair and neutral and to avoid conflicts and the appearance of impropriety. If a potential conflict of interest arises, I will review the Judicial Code of Conduct and the rules under 28 U.S.C. sections 144 and 445a. After reviewing the applicable rules, I will consult, as appropriate, colleagues on the bench or representative with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts."

    --Judge Gonzalo Curiel


    Mexican-American, ties to La Raza, ties to law firm that paid HRC $225K for one speech, unseals inappropriate documents and then "reseals" them days to weeks later upon realizing his mistake, allows the case to go forward even though at least one of the principal plaintiffs has backed out, suspicious timing of hearings, and etc... The appearance of impartiality and impropriety has been breached. The judge should recuse himself.

    4) This suit is being used in a devious way to try and distract the public from the crimes of many corrupt R and D politicians--but especially HRC.


    1. Trump himself drew national attention to this. Maybe he knew the rulings were coming and wanted to put his own spin on it first. But let's not pretend this is somehow a conspiracy to cover up for Clinton. Also, I'm not excusing Clinton. They can both be wrong. So top using Clinton as an excuse for what Trump does. Just because she's wrong for her emails doesn't mean Trump is somehow excused for his actions. I don't care for the villains or anti-hero comparison since this is reality and not a comic book.

    2. Racism, bigotry, whatever. The use of a person's inherent trait to define who that person is. The point of my post is that identity does not create politics. It is impossible to criticize someone without attacking them with bigotry/racism/prejudice. Trump could have just said the judge was part of a La Raza. He could have said the judge is liberal. Or has a conflict of interest. He could make all these arguments, but the one he chose to repeat over and over in his interview with Jake Tapper and at his rallies is that Judge Curiel is Mexican. Trump could have made his arguments without saying Judge Curiel is Mexican. He did not. Trump chose to conflate the judge's identity as a Hispanic with politics. That's the prejudice or bigotry.

    Also, as a side note, what does racism mean to you? What does Trump has to say before you go "yeah, he's being racist." He's crossed the line for many people, so I'm curious to know where the line is for you.

    3. Fair enough, everyone is biased. But that doesn't mean that Judge Curiel's bias has affected his rulings; otherwise, we couldn't have judges. The question is whether the bias affects their judgement:

    a. Mexican-American

    -As I said, he's an American citizen. It's the definition of racism to believe that just because his parents are from Mexico that he's biased in favor of Mexico. Given that he helped put Mexicans in jail for smuggling drugs and that he's a sitting federal judge, the presumption should be that he's in favor of American laws.

    b. Ties to La Raza

    - Please read what I wrote above. Different groups, and guilt by association to an association is flimsy at best.

    c. Ties to Law Firm that paid $225k for one speech

    - I haven't read how close the judge is to the plaintiff's counsel. Were they classmates in law schools twenty years ago? Did they attend an MCLE seminar together a few years ago? Were they co-workers at a law firm? Which departments? Is the judge married to one of the partners? Ties between judge and attorney have to be very close (family, business partnership, or intimate) before there's any presumption of conflict of interest or bias. The mere fact that the judge and attorney know one another is not enough.

    Also, lawyers are private citizens who can donate to whoever they want. They don't need the judges permission to spend their money. It wouldn't surprise me that plaintiff's counsel would donate to the candidate who opposes Trump. The bigger surprise is that Trump would hire lawyers who donate to Clinton!

    d. Unseals inappropriate documents

    How are they inappropriate? They are evidence relating directly to the case at bar. Evidence to the court is usually public absent a reason for the court to seal them. Trump's reason was to preserve trade secrets. Since Trump U is closed and no one believes Trump would reopen it if he actually won the 2016 elections, there's no trade secrets to protect. So the default position is to release them to the public record, of which some of them are already public.

    e. reseals

    - Interesting. I just read this now. A little odd, but nothing conclusive. But I'll give you this one.

    f. Allows the case to go forward when one principal plaintiff backs out.

    The federal rule for maintaining a class action is Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The requirements for maintaining a class action are: 1. class is so numerous that it is impracticable to join them all, 2. questions of law that are common to all classes, 3. claims or defenses are typical of all plaintiffs or defendants, 4. representative parties fairly represent all plaintiffs; subsection (b), class action shall be maintained if Rule 23(a) is maintained and: 1. there is a risk that prosecuting separate actions would create separate standards of conduct, 2. party opposing class has acted in a way that denies relief to all plaintiffs, and 3. court finds that common questions of law predominate all plaintiffs and that a class action is the superior method of adjudicating all claims.

    Notice in that long list of requirements for a class action, there is no requirement that the lead plaintiff representing the class be the same plaintiff at all times. The general requirement is that the class is too large for a single case and that the class action addresses a common question of law regarding all plaintiffs. In other words, it doesn't matter if Mr. Jones drops out and Mr. Smith is subbed in as a lead plaintiff. As long as both Mr. Jones and Mr. Smith want to know whether advertising that the professors are hand-picked by Trump, when in fact they are not, rises to the level of fraud, they have a class action.

    4. Again, stop blaming everyone else for what Trump did. It's possible that both Trump and Clinton are wrong with regards to their respective actions.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from gumOnShoe »
    So, on the topic of things relevant to Trump as president and not whether his supporters who post on forums can construct an argument....

    The big thing going on now: Trump University Fraud. "A mexican judge can't be objective" ~ Trump (Paraphrased by me)
    I get that trump's not a nazi, directly. But, this certainly feels in the vein of their politics. A national party trying to run on racism? **** That.


    Even if the whole thing wasn't built on racism (it is), the logic behind his attacks makes me cringe. Here's my fleshed out summary of Trump's arguments:

    1. I'm building a wall
    2. Mexicans hate the wall
    3. Judge Curiel is Mexican and/or associated with Mexicans
    4. Judge Curiel is against the wall
    Conclusion: Judge Curiel is unfair to me

    Individually and together, the premises don't work and the conclusion they're suppose to lead to is just as absurd. I'll skip over #2, as it's somewhat true, even though Trump himself claims that Hispanics love him and that Mexico will pay for the wall. Why would they pay for a wall they hate? But lets accept that for the moment:

    Premise #3a: Judge Curiel is Mexican
    Judge Curiel's parents were from Mexico, but he was born in Indiana. Even if you dislike the concept of "anchor babies," he is still legally a U.S. citizen and thus is an American.

    Premise #3b: Judge Curiel is Associated with Mexicans
    Trump supporters have made a huge deal about Judge Curiel's association with La Raza. Notably, there are more than one "La Raza" group. Judge Curiel belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyer's group, a subchapter of the larger La Raza Lawyers of California. I've personally attended a couple La Raza meetings at my own law school - they are networking groups who talk about mentorships and professional relationships between lawyers. There's nothing political, let alone insidious, about them.

    The only thing suspicious is that they share a name and a link on their website with the National Council of La Raza, which is known to be a political advocacy group for immigration. But think about that for a second; people are okay with condemning a judge for being associated with a group by association? The group Judge Curiel is part of is accepted by almost every law school in the country and probably has numerous judges in its membership. It would be one thing if Judge Curiel was actually part of the NCLR, but he's only associated through another group, and only through the weakest of ties - one web link. If anyone seriously thinks a court would overturn a ruling or recuse a judge based on this, they probably don't have much understanding of how the courts work.

    Premise #4: Judge Curiel is against the wall
    This is the unspoken assumption that Trump makes. "I'm building a wall" ----> "Judge is unfair to me" only works if you assume that Judge Curiel is personally against the wall. In fact, Judge Curiel hasn't said a word about the wall.

    There are judges who are outspoken about Trump's proposed wall though. Justice Don Willett of the Texas Supreme Court constantly makes fun of Trump on Twitter, including his wall, which Justice Willet has compared to the Death Star. Apparently, Trump doesn't think Justice Willet is biased; Trump proposes putting Willet on the U.S. Supreme Court! The main difference between Judge Curiel and Justice Willet is that the former is sitting in an actual case with Trump as a party while Justice Willet is not. If Judge Curiel were making Willet level tweets about Trump, an argument about bias might be appropriate. But just ruling against Trump is not a justification enough for claiming that the judge is biased.

    As I've said, Judge Curiel hasn't breathed a word about Trump's wall. However, Judge Curiel was a drug prosecutor who put Mexicans in jail for smuggling drugs into the United States. One could argue that Judge Curiel has done more to improve border security than Trump has to date. I could argue that, given his background and career, Judge Curiel might actually be in favor of increased border security. Trump is inferring that Judge Curiel opposes the wall based on the judge's parents and membership with an attorney group. Not the strongest of evidence to make that inference, especially when other parts of the judge's background could make one believe the opposite.

    Trump's Conclusion: Judge Curiel is unfair.
    As I said, Trump's whole argument is based on "I'm building a wall" ----> "Judge is unfair to me." Fact of the matter is though, a judge can hold political views different from the parties and still be non-biased with regards to the case before him or her. If Trump really thought the process is unfair, his lawyers could make a motion for recusal. The fact they have not suggests they realize this is a frivolous argument.

    No, the real reason Trump is spewing all this nonsense is to distract the public. Think about it: the question is no longer "Did Trump commit fraud?" Trump has shifted the discussion to "Is the judge biased?" There's no evidence to suggest it and Trump's own lawyers haven't done anything to show that they believe it, even though they've had years to do it. This is yet another publicity stunt to divert attention to a more comfortable topic for the Republican frontrunner.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from HolyJello »
    I am still floored by folks that claim to be against violence, and then turn around and equate a couple of rogue Trump supporters to many 1000s of rioters.


    Doesn't Trump himself support those "rogue supporters?" He's never condemned violence; instead, he's promised to pay their legal bills! I don't recall Sanders or Clinton advocating violent acts the way Trump has.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on The Thread to Celebrate/Vent over the Eternal Masters Contest
    Quote from Mockingbird »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    Will be reprinted:

    Ichorid
    Chain Lightning
    Brainstorm
    Hymn to Tourach
    Swords to Plowshares

    Will Not Be Reprinted:

    Dismember
    Notion Thief
    Painful Truths
    Coercive Portal
    Dread of Night


    Three out of five so far! Come on brainstorm/swords to plowshares!


    Congratulations. You are now at least winning in this thread with 5/5 reprints. And I will say that your not reprints look solid enough that you just might get the whole thing barring some last minute reveal or tie breakers.


    Thanks, but I'm not even on the leaderboard =(

    http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/the-rumor-mill/new-card-discussion/703569-ema-prediction-contest-leaderboard-and-discussion#c1
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on The Thread to Celebrate/Vent over the Eternal Masters Contest
    Will be reprinted:

    Ichorid
    Chain Lightning
    Brainstorm
    Hymn to Tourach
    Swords to Plowshares

    Will Not Be Reprinted:

    Dismember
    Notion Thief
    Painful Truths
    Coercive Portal
    Dread of Night


    Three out of five so far! Come on brainstorm/swords to plowshares!
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton's Presidency Thread
    So this report just came out: https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl

    Anyone think she should drop out? Even if Clinton escapes a DOJ indictment, the damage might already be done. Hard to believe that Bernie Sanders might be the only thing standing between Trump and the Oval Office.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Star City Games Preview - Jace, The Mindsculptor (Blue Mythic)
    Quote from Xenphire »
    Quote from digitek »
    So disappointing - how many opportunities do you get to do new art for one of the most iconic history-filled cards. Two straight times they declined to let any number of awesome artists go for it.


    I think that thought kind of contradicts itself, in a way, though. It definitely is one of the most iconic cards in the history of Magic, and that is arguably also a reason to keep the recognizable artwork for it to help preserve that Smile That being said, I wouldn't complain about new artwork, either. Can definitely understand the reasoning for keeping it, though.


    They let someone else draw Necropotence. New players don't know why its called "the skull." Way to ruin iconic art wotc Frown
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from hyperchord24 »
    You know what, neither Hilary nor Trump sound like a good choice. But I'm voting for Trump. Let's be honest, he's not going to blow up the world. He just won't so stop saying he'll be our last president. Too much drama.


    I forgot to address this earlier. I foresee two potential events where Trump, and Trump alone, could cause some kind of nuclear apocalypse.

    1. Insisting that Japan develop its own nuclear weapons.
    While Trump and followers might believe this will help America, it will likely scare the hell out of the Chinese. China and Japan relations have been, at best, lukewarm. Japan committed some brutal atrocities in China during WWII and never apologized. That is not water under the bridge. If Japan tried to acquire nukes, there's a strong chance that China would oppose it. Asia's status quo is stable right now, but Trump's policies will likely increase tensions.

    The insane thing is that Trump's policies are based on sheer ignorance. Trump claims that South Korea and Japan pay us nothing for our defense system. This is completely false, as Japan pays about 2 billion dollars annually and South Korea about 800 million annually.

    Trump would destabilize the region and provoke a nuclear power with bad history with its neighbors based on misinformation. If China reacts strongly, we could be facing a Cuban Missile Crisis in Asia, except with a President Trump instead of a President JFK.

    2. Poor Temperament
    I've already shown that Trump is very ignorant. However, it gets worse. When Trump takes action, he overreacts. Remember when a Cruz Pac posted a bad ad about Trump's wife? Trump could have denounced the ad and just asked for an apology from Cruz. Instead, Trump posted a comparison between the two women based purely on looks. There was no need to attack Mrs. Cruz like that; for all we know, she wasn't even aware that the anti-Trump ad existed. Trump accomplished nothing with his attack and only made himself look worse. Or the morning of the Indiana primary. Trump went on national television and all but accused Cruz's father of being part of the JFK assassination. There was no need for that and only made Trump look crazy.

    Trump's entire profile is that someone pushes him and he doubles down. I admit, sometimes that's admirable and appropriate. But it just as often gets him into trouble. If Iran or another power tries to provoke Trump into a war, it would be all too easy. Could we win? It would likely be another Iraq, where we find ourselves in a bad situation with few ways out. But that's the best case situation in a world with nuclear weapons.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from hyperchord24 »
    Do you really think Hilary's admin will be a repeat? Obama was far more electable than Hilary ever could be. I don't think Hilary could survive another scandal, do you? Obama wasn't embroiled in an email scandal leading up to the election. Look, I don't doubt that left policies will be enacted under Hilary. But if she makes one mistake, just ONE and we're looking at another 8 years of bible-thumpers.



    Or Trump 2.0. I mean, the Republicans seem to have an endless supply of crazies on their side these days. Palin, Trump, Carson, etc.

    I mean, Drumpf has super successful in the primaries. If I were a GOP office seeker, I'd ditch the bible-thumpers for the nativists that he's gathered.

    Quote from hyperchord24 »

    Hilary does. She got hornswoggled out of it 8 years ago and the desperation is plan as day on her face. She feel owed this election. She reminds of of smeagol whenever the one ring was just a few feet from his face. That's just creepy. Donald is rich enough to where he could just retire somewhere and **** young women. He isn't though.


    Well, duh Hilary has long wanted to be President.

    But Trump has planned to run for almost as long. Plus, if you think Hilary is full of herself, Trump is a complete narcissist. "I'm rich." "I'll be the best at the military your head will spin." It wouldn't be surprising if Trump's primary motive for running was to puff himself up.

    Also, Trump is pretty creepy himself. Who pretends to be their own publicist so that they brag about dating celebrities? Who talks about their daughters like they want to date them? What's with the birther and the Cruz-JFK conspiracies?

    If it was just the controversial policies, I think Trump would be fine as long as he has a bunch of advisors to keep him in check. But his personality suggests there's something else at work in his mind that I wouldn't want in a position of power.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Planechase Anthology
    Wait...so this will have the planar cards from 2009 and 2012, but only the decks from 2012? Am I reading that right? (Serious question)
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 1

    posted a message on Why is wotc so afraid of visting dominaria?
    Quote from Zer0evil »
    Thought Liliana was Innistrad?


    Innistrad was the first plane she walked to. Dominaria is her home plane.
    Posted in: Magic Storyline
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Highroller »
    Quote from dox »
    Well that is one crisis averted. Now we just have to keep Trump out of the white house and we can have another four mediocre years instead of four awful years.
    See, that's the problem, though. We have to also find someone who can be a mediocre president. I don't believe Hillary would achieve mediocrity at all.

    Really hoping for someone good to run as a third party. Hell, now's the time for it, you have two incredibly unpopular people running.


    Gary Johnson is the only third party candidate off the top of my head. Could the Green Party or the American Independent Party somehow squeeze in? I mean, they need at least 15% of the polls across 5 polls to even get into the Presidential debates with Trump and Clinton.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from HolyJello »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »


    The most power that a president wields is not in domestic policy. Its in foreign affairs, particularly the commander in chief power, that a president has almost unilateral power. The President could send troops anywhere in the world and there's very little Congress can do about it; the only options being a joint resolution saying he's overstepped his bounds, cutting off funds, and/or impeachment. Each option is time consuming and if the President makes a mistake that leads to war, Congress cannot put the brakes on in time, in which case we as a nation will be stuck with the President's foolhardy decision.

    Of course, most Presidents are smart enough to realize they need not only Congress, but the support of the American people to successfully wage a war. However, Trump's extremely narcissistic personality leads me to question whether he would consult with Congress or voters before doing something that could provoke or lead to war. I'm not eager to find out.

    Most Americans are against arming moderate rebels radical terrorists but Obama does it anyway even though it's repeatedly proven to be a stupid move. I don't know where the hatred is coming from re: Trump's foreign policy.
    About one million human beings killed under Obama's orders to date, but it is ok because he has a Nobel Peace Prize. HRC voted for the invasion of Iraq, plus lots of death in several other countries, but it is ok because she cares a lot about all the 1000s of victimized groups in America.

    Trump will be worse than them because... well... he says meaner things to and about corrupt folks that are filthy rich... and... ummm... he has yucky hair. Yep. Nailed it! #LogicFTW


    I was replying to the question, "what's the worse Trump can do as President if both parties hate him and with the checks and balances of the Constitution?" (paraphrased). My answer is that the President has almost no checks, or very weak checks, when commanding the world's strongest military.

    In fact, President Obama's use of drones proves my point: despite a Republican majority in Congress opposing everything he stands for, Obama is able to carry out a program that many in both parties oppose.

    Like I said, it's not his "mean words" or his "yucky hair" that concerns me. It's the personality traits that he alone has exhibited which makes me question his judgment with not only our military, but with the political power the White House itself holds and represents.

    1. Ignorance In Foreign Policy

    Trump shows a staggering lack of knowledge about foreign affairs, and he seems less knowledgeable as the election continues. Examples:

    Trump claims we get next to nothing for protecting South Korea when in fact SK has paid us almost $800 million annually.

    Trump claims we get nothing in exchange for $150 billion in the Iranian nuclear deal. This is wrong because 1. the $150 billion was Iran's to begin with, so its not like we gave them our own money, and 2. Iran agrees to give up 97% of it's stockpiled uranium and 3. international inspectors are allowed to monitor its remaining stockpiles.

    Trump claims he never discussed Libya during a debate when in 2011 he called for armed intervention of said country.

    Of course, its possible Trump does know what he's talking about and is merely lying. But he would never lie right?

    2. Inability to Admit When He Is Wrong

    He seems unable to criticize himself and reflect on his actions. Even if you don't like Presidents Bush and Obama or their policies, both men were able to publicly admit when they were wrong (not enough troops in Iraq and Obamacare website rollout) and took steps to correct those mistakes (troop and tech surge). In contrast, Trump has never apologized or admitted he has made a mistake. Trump's campaign is very badly organized, with the campaign at one point sending emails to the wrong people after the deadline is over. Instead of taking steps to correct those mistakes though, Trump blames the GOP for having unfair rules.

    Another example: Trump took out an ad in 1989 demanding the death penalty for five men who were accused of rape. The trial hadn't been held yet, but Trump demanded that the death penalty be restored to punish them for a crime they hadn't been convicted of yet. Years later, evidence revealed that the men did not in fact commit the crime, but Trump never apologized and instead doubled down, casting New York as the victim for compensating the men for their wrongful sentences.

    If Trump makes a mistake in foreign policy, which I think is very likely given the sheer ignorance he has displayed about any policy, he will likely double down on his mistakes instead of changing course and cost the nation, if not the world, a lot of money and lives.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 2

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Lithl »
    Quote from Highroller »
    You're asking if the Republican political interests would align with Democratic ones. The answer is no. Just because someone is against Trump doesn't make them a Democrat.


    I'm asking the opposite; if the RNC is against Trump, why wouldn't the Democrats want Trump to be their nominee?
    Because the Democratic platform isn't "we want everything the Republicans don't". It is in fact possible for Republicans and Democrats to agree on things, and "we don't want Trump in the White House" is one of them.


    So Democrats would rather have Cruz or Kasich? These are people who would have the support of their Republican constituents; this would allow their bills to get passed. Wouldn't the Democrats rather want a lame duck with no high-tier political connections and the contempt of both parties? Trump wouldn't be able to get anything done, similar to how the Republican party shut out Obama from accomplishing his loftier, liberal goals.


    The most power that a president wields is not in domestic policy. Its in foreign affairs, particularly the commander in chief power, that a president has almost unilateral power. The President could send troops anywhere in the world and there's very little Congress can do about it; the only options being a joint resolution saying he's overstepped his bounds, cutting off funds, and/or impeachment. Each option is time consuming and if the President makes a mistake that leads to war, Congress cannot put the brakes on in time, in which case we as a nation will be stuck with the President's foolhardy decision.

    Of course, most Presidents are smart enough to realize they need not only Congress, but the support of the American people to successfully wage a war. However, Trump's extremely narcissistic personality leads me to question whether he would consult with Congress or voters before doing something that could provoke or lead to war. I'm not eager to find out.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Jace - Enough is Enough
    Quote from Hamm81 »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    Quote from Zer0evil »
    Obviously he is popular, or WOTC would not waste time and money on him.


    Or WOTC wastes time and money on him and therefore he's popular?


    Define "wastes"?

    Have you no concept of business and marketing? You must not to make such a silly comment.

    Apple wastes all that time and money on the iPhone therefore it is popular. See how dumb it sounds when you say it that way?


    Good on you for insulting a random stranger on the internet instead of just sticking to the discussion.

    Waste would be "spending more than receives in return." Since Jace already has flip jace in standard, making this new Jace Tamiyo instead would have pleased the Tamiyo crowd while the Jace fans still would have been happy. Instead, they printed a new Jace and made Jace fans happy while pissing off people who don't like Jace. Sounds like a potential waste to me.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 11

    posted a message on Jace - Enough is Enough
    Quote from Zer0evil »
    Obviously he is popular, or WOTC would not waste time and money on him.


    Or WOTC wastes time and money on him and therefore he's popular?
    Posted in: Magic General
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from HolyJello »
    I will vote for any pig that might be able to overthrow the tyrants in the US gvt.

    I know Donpool is the anti-hero, but mostly cause the other politicians are MUCH worse.

    I get why peeps are afraid of Donpool, I just don't understand why most of these same folks passionately support other corrupt politicians that happily embrace crony capitalism here and horrific wars in country after country far away. GW Bush lied about Iraq. HRC voted for it. Obama has a peace prize, even though he has bragged about being good at killing. Tons of current R politicians are at least as corrupt as Obama. Disgusting.

    Trump has many, many weaknesses, but he might not be a 100% corrupt doorknob. Maybe.



    Please define corruption. It's not enough to assume that Trump is above corruption just because Trump claims it so. The man literally proposed a tax plan that would benefit himself more than the working class he's suppose to be saving.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Ljoss »
    It's looking more and more like Trump vs. Bernie. I can't believe it is going to be another one of those "vote for the Democrat or be racist" elections. We've just come off two of those in a row and honestly Bernie scares me a lot more than Barack Obama ever did. How many pairs of candidates have there been in our peace-time history that could create the kind of wide-spread antagonism among the people that these two are capable of? Once or twice before the civil war, that's all I can think of.


    Can't follow with you there. Sander's main audience are white college students and working class folks. Clinton's the one that draws on the black vote - hence her victories in the South. Sanders might be a self-identifying socialist, but there are conservatives that absolute loathe Hillary Clinton.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Infallible »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    Quote from HolyJello »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    So, Trump cancelled an event in Chicago for "security concerns" when large numbers of protesters showed up. After that announcement, supporters and protesters started fighting, and people have been injured. Wow, the violence is really escalating...
    Gaping Uhh
    Protesters at Trump rallies have become increasingly aggressive and rude in recent weeks. The media whines and complains when a protester is hit or knocked down, and consistently fails to mention that the protesters almost always start the violence. Screaming and swearing and wearing vulgar shirts is an attempt to intimidate, silence, and/or censor. Free speech OUTSIDE the venue is appropriate, including passionate chanting and clever/strong signs and such. But what we are seeing here is the beginnings of desperation by those that receive "free" goodies from the statists. They are VERY afraid that the gravy train is gonna be decreased and/or abolished. The fact that one almost never hears of protesters at any other rallies is a CLEAR signal that DJT is either the worst candidate in this cycle or the best. (Meaning, for America and we the people). The status quo types, everyone but Bernie and Trump, do NOT want to change much in the centers of power.

    When was the last time Independents, Repubs, or Conservatives tried to shut down a Bernie or Hillary rally? DaRning, to say the least.


    Black Lives Matter tried to shut down a Bernie rally last year. The senator just stood aside and let them talk. Pretty big contrast between candidates if you ask me. Based on tonight's reports though, I hope that Bernie supporters try to emulate their candidate in the future.


    no bro. He let them take over his podium, stand by like the weakling he is, and then let them call his entire crowd white racists who took time out of their day to come see him speak.

    Emulate their candidate? You mean never earning a paycheck until they're 40 and living off government assistance? I'm sure plenty of them have that in mind.


    Well, I was responding to a post that asked why Bernie's not a target for violent protesters. You might see weakness, and that's a valid interpretation, but there haven't been any further incidents at his rallies since (that I know of). Maybe letting the other side speak their piece, instead of throwing them out the building, would ease tensions.

    When I say emulate their candidate, I mean try to resolve things in a peaceful manner that respects the other side's freedom of speech. Isn't that what you were asking for when you complained about "tolerant liberals" a few posts back?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from HolyJello »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    So, Trump cancelled an event in Chicago for "security concerns" when large numbers of protesters showed up. After that announcement, supporters and protesters started fighting, and people have been injured. Wow, the violence is really escalating...
    Gaping Uhh
    Protesters at Trump rallies have become increasingly aggressive and rude in recent weeks. The media whines and complains when a protester is hit or knocked down, and consistently fails to mention that the protesters almost always start the violence. Screaming and swearing and wearing vulgar shirts is an attempt to intimidate, silence, and/or censor. Free speech OUTSIDE the venue is appropriate, including passionate chanting and clever/strong signs and such. But what we are seeing here is the beginnings of desperation by those that receive "free" goodies from the statists. They are VERY afraid that the gravy train is gonna be decreased and/or abolished. The fact that one almost never hears of protesters at any other rallies is a CLEAR signal that DJT is either the worst candidate in this cycle or the best. (Meaning, for America and we the people). The status quo types, everyone but Bernie and Trump, do NOT want to change much in the centers of power.

    When was the last time Independents, Repubs, or Conservatives tried to shut down a Bernie or Hillary rally? DaRning, to say the least.


    Black Lives Matter tried to shut down a Bernie rally last year. The senator just stood aside and let them talk. Pretty big contrast between candidates if you ask me. Based on tonight's reports though, I hope that Bernie supporters try to emulate their candidate in the future.
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from dox »
    Quote from Infallible »
    This is going to cause his support to grow quite a bit. What a massive failure. The worst part is reading the second eye witness account I posted and hearing about scared young people hiding in parking garages and getting assaulted just for supporting a presidential candidate. You can put some blame on Trump, and I don't think that's unfair to do so. But, to blame him entirely for the events of tonight is like blaming a car for running someone over and the driver having no fault. This is honestly just incredibly depressing. I fear for his life if he gets elected, and I'm not one to fear for the life of a billionaire with top notch security. This is just insane.
    I think you would need to have better evidence than eye witness reports from Trump supporters. Given the situation they would likely be biased.

    Also, dear lord that reddit page. It all makes sense now. If that's where you have been getting information no wonder you are in love with Trump.


    I'm sure each of the candidates have a reddit page where their supporters can talk. Nothing unusual. Mtg has a reddit page that I frequent all the time :p

    Yeah, we can't rely on one side for all the facts. However, given how recent the events are, it's likely that Trump supporters are posting as things are happening, so there isn't a whole lot of time to fabricate or fake things. I wonder what the anti-Trump crowd's version of events look like.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Infallible »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    Quote from Infallible »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    Also, I've never seen any evidence that the protesters are violent (other than Trump's word).
    Yeah, as far as I can tell, all the violence is directed at the protesters, and with Trump's full encouragement.



    .........................

    REALLY!?!?! This is HIS FAULT? His supporters are getting assaulted, cops are getting assault, an ambulance got shot at in a drive by, his supporters are being stopped from leaving by protesters and this is his fault?

    I need to get off social media tonight. I've already seen the GOP blamed, Trump blamed, his supporters blamed and the police blamed. Not a single person blaming the violent group of 'tolerant' liberal protesters who started all this.


    Well, Trump has said things that one could certainly interpret as promoting violence. The spoken desire to punch a protester and an offer to pay the legal fees of supporters who are charged with assault. After several weeks of this, one could argue that escalating violence was foreseeable based solely on Trump's words.

    The thing is, Trump didn't even need to say those things to get his point across. He could have promoted his wall and Mexico paying for said wall without expressing a desire to punch protesters himself. Trump could have ignored the incidents where people were removed without comment. Or he could have asked his supporters to not touch or yell at the protesters as they were being removed. Instead, he said things that many could reasonably interpret as an invitation to do violence. So yes, I think some blame can go to Trump.

    However, with regards to tonight's incident, it might be possible to lay the blame on the protesters. Assuming all your sources are accurate, its not okay to throw rocks and bottles at anyone, regardless of the reasoning. It's just hard to believe that 8 years ago, it seemed we were going in a positive direction and now...well now we have the beginnings of an open riot.



    This is going to cause his support to grow quite a bit. What a massive failure. The worst part is reading the second eye witness account I posted and hearing about scared young people hiding in parking garages and getting assaulted just for supporting a presidential candidate. You can put some blame on Trump, and I don't think that's unfair to do so. But, to blame him entirely for the events of tonight is like blaming a car for running someone over and the driver having no fault. This is honestly just incredibly depressing. I fear for his life if he gets elected, and I'm not one to fear for the life of a billionaire with top notch security. This is just insane.


    No, based on available evidence (although they all come from Trump supporters; I would like to see police or secret service reports), protesters seem to have instigated tonight's violence. But what about past protests, where the protesters were only a single person or a handful of people? Is there evidence that protesters were violent before tonight?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Infallible »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    Also, I've never seen any evidence that the protesters are violent (other than Trump's word).
    Yeah, as far as I can tell, all the violence is directed at the protesters, and with Trump's full encouragement.



    .........................

    REALLY!?!?! This is HIS FAULT? His supporters are getting assaulted, cops are getting assault, an ambulance got shot at in a drive by, his supporters are being stopped from leaving by protesters and this is his fault?

    I need to get off social media tonight. I've already seen the GOP blamed, Trump blamed, his supporters blamed and the police blamed. Not a single person blaming the violent group of 'tolerant' liberal protesters who started all this.


    Well, Trump has said things that one could certainly interpret as promoting violence. The spoken desire to punch a protester and an offer to pay the legal fees of supporters who are charged with assault. After several weeks of this, one could argue that escalating violence was foreseeable based solely on Trump's words.

    The thing is, Trump didn't even need to say those things to get his point across. He could have promoted his wall and Mexico paying for said wall without expressing a desire to punch protesters himself. Trump could have ignored the incidents where people were removed without comment. Or he could have asked his supporters to not touch or yell at the protesters as they were being removed. Instead, he said things that many could reasonably interpret as an invitation to do violence. So yes, I think some blame can go to Trump.

    However, with regards to tonight's incident, it might be possible to lay the blame on the protesters. Assuming all your sources are accurate, its not okay to throw rocks and bottles at anyone, regardless of the reasoning. It's just hard to believe that 8 years ago, it seemed we were going in a positive direction and now...well now we have the beginnings of an open riot.

    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Tipsygiggle »
    Trumps rally is shutdown by violent protesters. Honestly this probably helps Trump. It makes it look like he was right all along. It also highlights how divided the country is and how left behind white voters feel.


    This bolsters Trump in the eyes of his followers and some people who were leaning his way. But if this keeps escalating, his opponents will be emboldened and independents will frown on the violence, regardless of who started it.

    Also, I've never seen any evidence that the protesters are violent (other than Trump's word). Do you have reliable sources?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    So, Trump cancelled an event in Chicago for "security concerns" when large numbers of protesters showed up. After that announcement, supporters and protesters started fighting, and people have been injured. Wow, the violence is really escalating...
    Gaping Uhh
    Posted in: Debate
  • 1

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Infallible »
    Quote from Infallible »
    A catholic priest should be able to tell two gay people, regardless of gender, to kick bricks if he doesn't agree with their choices.
    Legalizing gay marriage did not force the Catholic priest to marry gay people. It just allowed the Unitarian minister across the street to marry gay people.


    That is not at all what has happened and is happening. And you know it. It's not a 'marriage' by biblical stance, it's a civil union. Homosexuals want that anyway despite it being against the religion of those who can grant it. There is literally no reason homsexuals need to say "married" vs "civil union". I don't care. I can't find a single bit of benefit being 'married' vs being civilly binded grants. The reason for this is that there are none.


    Been following this thread for awhile, but this post caught my eye. If there is no difference between marriage and civil union, but only heterosexual people can get married while only homosexual people can have civil unions, isn't this "separate but equal"?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on [[Official]] Modern Prices Discussion
    Quote from Aazadan »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »

    If this is true, I will lose what little confidence I have in wotc to manage the format. I mean, with Pod and Twin, they went straight for the jugular and axed the engines of the decks. So why does Eldrazi get a free pass?


    Abzan Company is very similar to what Pod was like prior to it's final year.


    Didn't Company come after the ban? It's not like anyone could have predicted that Company would pull the band back together and recreate the deck (not even Wizards, since they don't playtest the format).
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on [[Official]] Modern Prices Discussion
    Quote from Equinox2793 »
    Quote from rcwraspy »
    Quote from Equinox2793 »
    Based on Aaron's interview it seems like only one land is getting banned since he likes the deck for some reason. Since eye of ugin is the most degenerate land I expect it to go. Does that mean that people should be getting Eldrazi temples now? It seems like a decent spec at the moment.
    I didn't get that from his interview at all. I took away that both lands will go but no creatures or other pieces.


    Banning out both lands means that the deck completely dies. He wants to keep it alive so one land will probably go. Power level wise it's def Eye of Ugin hence why I asked if Eldrazi temple is a good spec.


    If this is true, I will lose what little confidence I have in wotc to manage the format. I mean, with Pod and Twin, they went straight for the jugular and axed the engines of the decks. So why does Eldrazi get a free pass?
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Eldrazi Controversy Thread
    Quote from protoaddict »
    Processor only existed because of the lands. Period. It is an otherwise underwhelming deck that is moreso a bad tron list. Any land ban will kill any remnant of that deck.


    That's a misconception. I played B/W Eldrazi before Oath came out. They were more like Jund decks with a tron endgame, and as a result could eat 'goyf and snapcaster decks alive, while losing to aggro and tron. The new versions are affinity/Jund...with a tron endgame. They don't have any real weaknesses other than being big dumb creature decks with broken lands.
    Posted in: Modern
  • 0

    posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Highroller »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ

    Wonderful, wonderful takedown of Trump.

    We're entering into Super Tuesday. We'll see if people wise up, or if they continue to vote Trump. Life is full of surprises. We might just receive one.


    I loved the video and no fan of Donald Drumpf, but it's still important to see what the other side has to say:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/48a3y0/the_true_story_behind_the_donald_drumpf_accusation/
    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/48ci1g/after_being_asked_countless_times_heres/

    Any way to verify what John Oliver said compared to what the Drumpf Supporter is arguing in these reddit posts?
    Posted in: Debate
  • 0

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor
    Hi guys, back from another tournament - and probably the last one if the deck is hit by the ban hammer in April Frown

    It was a small event, with only 14 players, so we went 4 rounds of swiss.



    The journeys are my tech against reality smasher. I'm only running two thought-knot seer and zero reality smasher because I don't want to invest in the deck if the ban removes both eye and temple.

    Well, here's the report:

    Match 1 - B/W Hate Bears
    Game 1: I inquisition and remove an AEther vial, leaving two inquisitions and some sort of bear. She inquisitions back but I have no targets except a lingering souls. My turn, I flashback the souls and begin the beats. She plays another vial and begins playing creatures. This is a slow grindy game, but I constantly have her on the back foot with remove and creatures. Eye of Ugin ensures that she can’t answer the rise of the eldrazi.

    In: 2 Flaying Tendrils, 3 Journey to Nowhere. Out: 3 Inquisition, 2 Oblivion Sower

    Game 2: I play Urborg and keep a flooded strand in hand, which was silly because she plays a leonin arbiter, locking me out of white mana for a good 5 turns. She gets a dark confidant, a thalia, and more hate bears. I stall with dismember and some wasteland strangers. I finally draw my plains, and cast my first lingering souls and a path the following turn. Unfortunately, I’m at 4 and facing lethal. I topdeck flaying tendrils and wipe the board. I follow up with a blight herder with spawn tokens. I attack for a couple of turns. I have spellskite in hand, but I foolishly keep in a hand. I attack with the blight herder and she vials in a Wasteland Stranger of her own, trading with my blight herder. Time is called and I manage to tie the game by ghost quartering what would otherwise be a lethal attack from a shambling vent.

    Since I won the first game and drew the second, the match goes to me.

    1-0

    Match 2 – Kiki Cord

    Game 1: He plays some ‘goyfs which I path. He draws enough mana and creatures though to combo out.

    In: 2 Journey To Nowhere, 2 Surgical Extraction. Out: 1 Spellskite, 2 Oblivion Sower, 1 Expedition Map

    Game 2: I keep a hand with discard and removal, but no eldrazi or souls. I stall the board for awhile, but he beats me with a pack of wolf tokens from Huntmaster.

    My sideboard was a mistake. I should have sided in flaying tendrils and kept in spellskite, but I wasn’t familiar enough with his deck to understand how to stop it. Oh well.

    1-1

    Match 3 – Griselbrand Reanimator

    Game 1: He mulls and I make it worse by discarding a mana source. He loots, and loots, and loots some more. I cast relic and remove his graveyard. I hit him with another inquisition and remove a night’s whisper. He has Griselbrand and a spirit guide, but nothing else. I cast blight herder and chain into another blight herder, threatening lethal when he’s at 11. He top decks through the breach and combos out.

    In- 2 Celestial Purge, 2 Surgical Extraction. Out: 4 Wasteland Stranger

    Game 2: He mulls once. I cast a blight herder on turn 3 without processing. He tries to cast through the breach with Griselbrand on turn 6, but I have celestial purge. He concedes.

    Game 3 – I keep a risky hand with 2 maps, 2 paths, 1 inqusition, 1 lingering souls and 1 land. I top deck a land and inquisition him. I draw a relic and remove each card that lands in his grave as they come. I get my third land, and cast map. Map fetches my fourth, then my fifth land (I have two maps) while I hold white mana up in case he tries to combo. When I cast lingering souls, he tries comboing out, but I path his wurm. He concedes.

    Pretty easy matchup with maindeck relic and plenty of removal to exile his win conditions.

    2-1
    Match 4: R/B Eight Racks

    Game 1: I inquisition him and remove waste not from his hand. He plays smallpox, but I have a lingering souls to soften the blow. I ghost quarter his rakdos cranium, slowing his tempo. He plays two raven’s crime, but I have the relic to remove those. I Meanwhile, my spirit tokens and eldrazi maw him down. I dismember his only creature and swing for lethal.

    In: 2 Disenchant, 2 Revoke Existence, 2 Celestial Purge. Out: 2 Wasteland Stranger, 1 Ulamog, 1 Oblivion Sower, 2 Dismember

    Game 2: I mull to five and he hits me with a monastery swiftspear backed by discard and burn. Thankfully, I die quickly.

    Game 3: I play a quick thought-knot seer and remove a blightning. He plays a smallpox and I foolishly sacrifice my only plains, choosing to keep a ghost quarter instead. Big mistake. I draw a disenchant and three lingering souls while his racks and lone swiftspear peck away at me. Finally, I draw enough lands to cast Oblivion sower. This nets me two lands. I attack with my sower and he’s forced to chump, then take ten damage. I cast a wasteland stranger to threaten lethal damage. He has me at three, so a single bolt will end me. My opponent draws ensnaring bridge and breathes a sign of relief. Not bad, except I have a disenchant in hand. I ghost quarter one of the lands I stole from him and dig up a plains, cast disenchant, and then swing for lethal.

    3-1

    My record nets me $27.50 in store credit, so I almost double my entry fee. Not a bad run.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 2

    posted a message on Duel Decks: Blessed vs. Cursed
    Alright, as promised I played a few games with proxies:

    Game 1 -

    Zombies Cursed wins the dice roll and has to choose between blue mana (tap land) for a screeching skaab and a turn 1 diregraf ghoul. I lead with the ghoul. Humans Blessed goes turn 1 cathedral sanctifier. Cursed draws an island and screeching skaab comes down, milling two. I attack with my ghoul and Blessed chooses not to block. Blessed has yet to draw an island, so it enchants the sanctifier with bonds of faith and swings for three. Sadly, Blessed doesn't draw an island for the rest of the game as Cursed plays more zombies. Blessed has the removal though, rebuke on unbreathing horde and fiend hunter for diregraf captain. Mindwrack Demon comes down though, and the game ends shortly as Blessed can't even chump block after tooth collector starts triggering (Delirium is easy to trigger when you can mill yourself!)

    Game 2 -

    Fiend hunter eats a butcher ghoul so thraben heteric begins the beats. Cursed plays a skaab and exiles a flier with appetite for brains. Blessed plays a grey ogre of some sort and continues the attack. Blessed chumps with the skaab. Cursed plays moan of the unhallowed to stabilize. Blessed plays a couple of creatures and gains some life. An unbreathing horde comes down and a removal spell clears out the heteric. Blessed casts increasing devotion and suddenly the humans have won the numbers game. The zombies recruit a traitorous human in tooth collector, but he's not crazy enough to start picking off the townsfolk yet. Blessed begins changing the tides as it plays a couple of angels. The zombies are forced to take a couple hits, but a Mindwrack demon stabilizes the air.

    Although Cursed is forced to take 4 from its demon, another skaab triggers delirium. Blessed has gained almost twenty life this game, but it's clear that the board is turning back in the zombie's favor. Compelling deterrence does an amazing recoil as goldnight redeemer is bounced and then discarded. Blessed flashbacks increasing devotion, but sever the bloodline means that faith can't save the human army. Blessed is now at 4, with tooth collector picking off random weenies here and there. Blessed knows its on it's fateful hour when it gather the townsfolk, but Cursed soars over head for the win.

    Thoughts:

    The decks do an amazing job capturing the feel of the original innistrad set and there appears to be enough removal to give the decks enough interaction. The new SOI cards made their impact and are fun, as delirium is a mini-game all by itself. Cursed feels like the stronger deck, but its difficult to tell with only two games, especially since Blessed was color-screwed in game 1. So far though, I would purchase this DD if I wanted recreate the original innistrad experience.
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 2

    posted a message on Duel Decks: Blessed vs. Cursed
    Quote from Raver »
    Quote from kingfede »

    They tend not to reprint lords who affect other players' creatures anymore. Death Baron would have been a good choice though, but I think it's too strong for a Duel Deck.


    At a single copy, it would not have made the duel deck insanely powerful. They could even do 2 lords and it still wouldn't make it good without a reliable way of drawing or tutoring into it.

    The original duel decks like divine vs demonic were perfect, fun and casual but had enough power so that it didn't feel like i threw all the cards together using a bulk commons box. DDs really took a nosedive since venser and koth and it's just sad. I bought DDs when they first came out and I definitely enjoyed playing them. They also served me well after it got boring because some of the cards can be used for other decks. Now it just looks like they're pushing the duel decks to face each other and nothing else


    I've been collecting DDs since Divine vs. Demonic. That one was terrible for playing, but it was worth buying for foil Akroma and alternative art demonic tutor. Everything else in there was chaff though. I mean, Angelic Page? Demon's Jester? OVEREAGER APPRENTICE?! Duel decks have always had bad cards in them, its just that some have more valuable reprints than others.

    Sometimes DDs can surprise you though. Sorin vs. Tibalt looked terrible, but if you actually play them out, they were amazing, despite having less than valuable cards (lingering souls and sorin aside). I'll be proxy testing this DD before judging it. I'm excited for this one since both of them have blue (which is underrepresented in DD) and no red (which is over represented in DD).
    Posted in: The Rumor Mill
  • 0

    posted a message on Agent Carter
    Season 2 has started:

    • Pleasantly surprised when Dottie Underwood came back in the very first scenes.
    • Likewise, also surprised Ray Wise appeared again this season.
    • Setting and tone in LA is just as impressive as NY, but I expect Carter to back in New York before the season is over.
    • Is the Council connected to Hydra? Their logos are very similar.
    • Looks like SSR might be absorbed by SHIELD this season. Well, sooner rather than later.
    • Love triangles are boring to me, so I'm hoping they do something more with Violet than be someone that causes drama for Sousa/Carter. Although Carter and Violet seem to get along very well.
    • Jason Wilkes probably isn't dead. Whitney Frost survived and the two of them were side by the side when the blast went off. both characters are subject to racism/sexism, so if there's a parallel, it would be interesting to see how they each react to the zero matter incident.

    What did everyone else think?

    Posted in: Television
  • 0

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor
    I'm surprised others have a hard time against merfolk. I've only played two matches (5 games) against merfolk, but the match-up seems 50/50 to me. Some play tips:

    • I use my discard to hit their support cards first, like aether vial or spreading seas.
    • I save my removal for their lords, especially master of waves. If there aren't any lords, kill the mutavaults.
    • Don't be afraid to use GQ on your own island. One of my opponents swung with what he thought was an unblockable school of fish. I GQ the eldrazi temple he spreading seas on and destroyed most of his creatures as a result.
    • Many of their cards are of little value against us, like spell pierce and cursecatcher. Vapor snag will often be used to save one of their lords from removal rather than bouncing an eldrazi. Use your wasteland stranglers because there's little merfolk can do against it.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on Keep or Dump Prerelease Nissa?
    So I opened a prerelease foil Nissa, Voice of Zendikar (yeah, bragging rights)!

    Should I keep it and hope the prices spike later or sell it now? What decks does this card go into?
    Posted in: Opinions & Polls
  • 0

    posted a message on [CA Bay Area] Discussion for the MTG-Playing Community of the Bay Area
    Quote from roxi »
    I went 5-3 in legacy on Saturday. Just kind of wandered the hall on Sunday for a couple hours. Picked up an unlimited Timetwister completing my set of power. Picked up an Italian foil dark ritual, bringing my global set to I believe 93/108 (getting really hard to find ones I don't have now!) And picked up a couple things I couldn't pass up. Legacy foil Defense Grid, 2 AQ Hurkyls, Beta Regrowth. Anyone else pick up anything sweet?


    Top 8 in Modern on Friday. Picked up a box of modern masters, box of khans of takir, a foil damnation, and several packs of new phyrexia. Plus that promo stoneforge mystic Smile
    Posted in: Deckbuilding/Playtest Groups
  • 0

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor
    Quote from Dinami »
    What do you think about Eldrazi Displacer? He works really good with Wasteland Strangler and Thought-Knot Seer. Too slow?


    I think it's a great SB card for aggro decks. Blinking blinkmoth nexus, inkmoth nexus, wild nacatl, merfolk, etc. Now that I think about it, it might help against tron too since it stops eldarzi and wurmcoils...
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor
    Quote from Beautox »
    Very excited this deck got bumped up to Tier two, just as excited to see one of the thorns in this decks side get banned(amulet), sadly twin was a good match up for us.


    Ban is bad, because with twin gone, tron takes its place as the biggest deck in the format. Fighting through Karns and wurmcoil engines is not what I want to do with this deck.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor
    Quote from Kruphix7 »
    Congratulations on a strong showing Darth Bunny! After your success w/ your current list I'm curious, what kind of changes do you think you'll want to make, if any, post OGW?


    Eldrazi displacer looks amazing against all the aggro decks, screwing with manlands,master of waves, ravager, etc. Thought-knot sower would have greatly helped against tron.

    Quote from the n00b king »
    @darth bunny: What cards do you think you didn't like? What did you feel over performed and underperformed? What changes would you bring?


    Damnation surprisingly under performed. Granted, it was usually because it was discarded or countered, but the one game where it really would have helped, I found myself stuck on 1 swamp without access to a second black source.Lingering Souls and Blight Herders were amazing, helping me race or block.

    Celestial purge was also underwhelming since I didn't face any burn, anything running Liliana of the Veil is almost a bye in most matches (mirror the exception), and I have more than enough removal/discard to handle twin. I would probably trade the purges out for duress.

    Speaking of changes, I went back to GP Oakland for a smaller Swiss on Sunday. My list was the same except I took out the damnations for a newly acquired spellskite and all is dust. The former I opened from a draft on Saturday and the latter I found at a pretty good price while walking around the vendors, so I was eager to try out my new toys:

    Match 1: Affinity

    G1 - He overruns me with little robots and flying manlands,then burns me out. I have a dead go for the throat in my hand the whole game. Second time my choice of removal has hurt me (first time was against infect and it's manlands).

    Board In - 2 Stony Silence, 2 Disenchant, 1 Ghost Quarter, Board Out - 2 Go For the Throat, 1 Oblivion Sower, 2 Expedition Map

    G2 - Similar game, but I have the disenchants and ghost quarters to slow him down. I eventually stabilize with lingering souls and blight herder.

    G3 - He has me on the backfoot as he dumps his hand, but he begins running out of gas as I chump with spirit tokens and wasteland stranglers. Then he casts day's undoing. Oh god. Luck is with me, as my new 7 contains a stony silence. Suddenly, most of his cards are blank. However, he somehow finds three master of etherium and suddenly I'm at 2 facing lethal. The only thing saving me is that his inkmoth nexus deals damage in the form of poison counters rather than damage.

    I play eye of ugin, although I'm unsure (I think I did?) if I played my land drop for the turn. My opponent didn't seem to care (or notice?), even though it was a tense game. For future reference, do I call a judge on myself? I fetch Ulamog, and he exiles two of the masters. My opponent concedes after that.

    Record: 1-0

    Match 2 - Merfolk

    G1 - He has some early fish, but no lords. He does spreading seas my only temple. I have the time to set up a board of eldrazi and spirits, but he eventually lands a master of waves and a master of pearls. He swings in with what he thinks is unblockable lethal, but I GQ my own island, a move he doesn't see coming. My eldrazi block his merfolk and suddenly the game is completely flipped on its head in my favor. He tries to grind it out, but he eventually scoops.

    Board In - 1 All is Dust, 1 Surgical Extraction Board Out - 1 Oblivion Sower, 1 Expedition Map

    G2 - I path his lords and his remaining fish can't stop my eldrazi horde.

    Record: 2-0

    Match 3 - Twin

    G1 - I double inquisition him and he loses his cantrips. I slow grind him, constantly holding back removal so that he can't suddenly combo off. Relic keeps his graveyard empty so his snapcasters can't generate any card advantage for him.

    Board In - 2 Celestial Purge, 1 Surgical Extraction Board Out- 1 Ulamog, 2 wasteland strangler

    G2 - Same as G1, except he kept a hand with two twins and one creature that I discard.

    Record: 3-0

    Match 4 - Infect (against the same one on Saturday!)

    G1 - I have him completely on the backfoot with double inquisitions, double lingering souls, and double GQ. I stupidly attack with my spirit tokens while he has an inkmoth in play. He attacks with the inkmoth and I attempt to GQ it. He gives it shroud. I could actiatve the second GQ in response, but I forget for a split second and the inkmoth resolves. He pumps it for lethal and once again I lose a game I was winning. Against the same infect player with the same deck. I'm such a good player.

    Board In - 2 Disenchant; 1 surgical extraction; Board Out - 2 Expedition Map, 1 oblivion sower

    G2 - I inquisition and he has 1 noble hierarch, 1 spellskite, 1 blighted agent, 1 glister elf, 1 forest, 1 inkmoth, 1 groundswell. It's a perfect hand for him, but I discard the elf and continue with the match. Still, I draw the removal I need to remove spellskite and keep his infect creatures from killing me. I finally learn from my previous games and pass priority to him every attack step before playing my own removal so that he can't just give them shroud in response. Eventually, spirit tokens take the win for me.

    G3 - He attacks with blighted agent pumped with noble hierarch every turn and I don't draw the removal to stop it.

    Record: 3-1.

    Match 5 - Tron

    I'm very greedy and we play instead of taking the draw. I chose poorly.

    G1 - He gets Karn on Turn 4 and kills me.

    Board In - 2 Stony Silence, 2 Crucible of Worlds, 2 Surgical Extraction, 1 Ghost Quarter, 2 Disenchant; Board Out - 1 Wasteland Stranger, 2 Go For the Throat, 4 Lingering Souls and 2 Expedition Map

    G2 - I play stony silence turn 2 and GQ an uraz's mine. No matter, he sylvan scrying for another one, assembles tron, and proceeds to play threat after threat. I'm able to keep pace for a little while, as I have a couple of paths and my oblivion sowers remove a couple of his eldrazi. Sadly, he fetches the third eldarzi in his deck and I'm done.

    Record: 3-2

    Instead of 190 prize tixckets if I had drawn with him, I get 2 tickets instead, and only because I wanted 360 ticks. Karma is a thing!


    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on <>Bx Eldrazi Processors
    Quote from The Fluff »
    Quote from Darth Bunny »
    Hey guys, just came back from GP Oakland Modern showdown. Here's my tournament report:

    <snip>

    My record is enough to get into Top 8 and we all split prize tickets rather than endure another potential 3 rounds. I have enough for two boxes of modern masters. Not bad for my first major modern tournament Kekeke Eager to see what Oath brings to the table!


    Congratulations on your victory. Wow, you showed them the power of Eldrazi. Made up of many cards in Standard, but can go against decks in Modern.

    Thanks for sharing the report. It's an informative read. Smile

    Just one question... is it hard to play against UW or Jeskai control decks with board wipe and Snapcaster?


    No, its actually a complete walk over them if you don't give them their mass removal back in their graveyard while they have double snapcaster and six mana up Wink

    Quote from robbietaro »

    Congrats Darth Bunny!

    I like the land base, I've been working around not having marsh flats either but went windswept heaths since they were cheaper. It doesn't sound like you had much trouble with fetch targets, but I am curious since you have only 3 targets for bloodstained. Did you ever have a dead one? Thanks!


    Thanks! No trouble, either I had the targets or an Urborg so they tapped for black mana regardless of whether I had fetch targets.
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • 5

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor
    Hey guys, just came back from GP Oakland Modern showdown. Here's my tournament report:



    Yeah, no marsh flats, but I didn't even notice. Caves of Koilos might even be better if the eldrazi in Oath are worth running.

    No bojuka bog either, as I don't want tap lands screwing up my curve. Plus, bog has literally cost me a mox in the past (couldn't cast a spell in a legacy finals because of the stupid bog), so you won't catch me running it in any deck I play.

    My board is set up for tron and the mirror, as I was expecting a lot of eldrazi decks.

    Match 1: Tron

    G1 - I go turn 1 inquisition and take his sylvan scrying. He rips a map off the top, assembles the Urzatron and gets a Karn down on Turn 3. Wasteland strangler stalls for two turns, but to no avail.

    Board In - 2 Stony Silence, 2 Crucible of Worlds, 2 Surgical Extraction, 1 Ghost Quarter, 2 Disenchant; Board Out - 1 Wasteland Stranger, 2 Go For the Throat, 4 Lingering Souls and 2 Expedition Map

    G2 - Another turn 1 inquisition and I take his crucible of worlds. He has a terrible hand with treble Urza Power Plant and a Pyroclasm. Turn 2 stony silence shuts off all the artifacts he draws into while Blight Herder beats down.I draw a ghost quarter to answer an Urza's mine, but it's overkill at that point.

    G3 - I open turn 1 thoughtseize and take a map from his hand. I land stony silence again and we trade crucibles as I disenchant his while he nature's claim mine. I beat down with Blight Herder and tokens for a couple of turns. He eventually draws into the Urza Tron and casts Wurmcoil Engine, but I have the path for it. A turn later, Oblivion sower comes down and I take double ghost quarter from the top of his deck and nuke his only Urza's Mine and sole green source.

    Record: 1-0 (2-1)

    Match 2: Infect

    G1 - My opening hand contains three removal spells: path, go for the throat, and wasteland stranger. I'm in complete control of the game as I path his Turn 2 Inkmoth Nexus and both his basic lands are in his opening hand. LOL. His mana dork is killed by wasteland stranger as I process his Inkmoth. I play a blight herder and oblivion sower. He's at 10 facing lethal on the board next turn when he swings his other inkmoth and pumps it for 10 exactly. I have no blockers or removal except for the go for the throat.

    Anyone see the misplay? I should have go for the throat his mana dork and stolen his first Inkmoth Nexus so that I could block instead of processing it back into the graveyard.

    Board In - 2 Disenchant, 1 Damnation; Board Out - 2 Expedition Map, 1 Oblivion Sower

    G2 - I'm stuck on 1 caves, 2 ghost quarter, and an eye while blighted agent slowly eats me away. I path his spellskite, but it doesn't stop the beats. I pray for a second black source to cast the damnation in my hand, but he has the spell pierce for it anyway.

    Record: 1-1 (2-3)

    Match 3: Azaban

    G1 - We trade discard and spirit tokens. He draws into two 'goyfs, but they're no match for 2 relics. Oblivion sowers and Blight Herders do him in while a topdeck Liliana can do nothing but sac an eldrazi token.

    Board In - 2 Celestial Purge, 1 Damnation; Board Out - 2 Inquisition, 1 Thoughtseize

    G2 - We both mull to five. We each have 3 lands and two spells, double thoughtseize for him and double damnation for me. After he reliefs me of my mass removal, I top deck relic and double souls. He tries to race him with 'goyf, but it's the most pathetic 'goyf ever as its always a 0/1 thanks to relic.

    Record: 2-1 (4-3)

    Match 4: Merfolk, splashing white for stony silence and path.

    G1 1 I go turn 1 inquisition, turn 2 path lord, turn 3 path lord, turn 4 lingering souls. He mistakes me for BW tokens until I cast Relic and Blight Herder, processing the two lords I path earlier. Despite my awesome opening, he manages to get double master of waves down with 2 more lords. I GQ my spreading seas land and block several masters (merfolk and elemental lords respectively), but the elemental tokens still do me in.

    Board In: 1 Damnation; Board Out: 1 Oblivion Sower

    G2 - He goes turn 2 stony silence. I shrug and cast double lingering souls. He negates one, but he can't race 6 spirit tokens while his lords get hit by spot removal.

    Board In: 1 Surgical Extraction; Board Out: 1 Expedition Map

    G3 - I thoughtseize him turn one and take one of two spreading seas. I answer his master of waves with path and then follow it up with oblivion sower for land. Still, he manages to assemble an army of fish. Ulamog finally shows up, removing a master and a lord. I fetch a vault of the archangel with my sole map, going from 1 life to 13. He concedes.

    Record: 3-1 (6-4)

    Match 5: Jeskai Control

    G1 - I punt this one so hard. Early discard shreds his land and double relic insures that Blight Herders are spawning eldrazi. I leave his snapcaster mages in hand because they're only 2/1 beaters with no graveyard. I put a supreme verdict back into his graveyard while he has 5 lands. He top decks the sixth, flashes back the verdict with a snapcaster, and suddenly all my dudes are dead. He draws a manland and proceeds to beat me with it, racing an oblivion sower. I use eye to fetch Ulamog. Instead of casting Ulamog and removing the manland though, I decide to fetch for vault and attack with oblivion sower, activating vault to gain life. Actually, my opponent paths the sower and suddenly I'm dead. I'm so great at Magic.

    Board In: 2 Crucible, 1 Ghost Quarter; Board Out: 1 Vault, 2 Wasteland Stranger

    G2 - Honestly, I don't remember this game at all, but I won. Sorry guys.

    G3 - He's stuck on two lands while I set up the GQ/Crucible lock with an eldrazi of some sort beating his face in.

    Record: 4-1 (8-5)

    Match 6: Bogles

    G1 - He mulls to five and I discard his only creature on the play. He can't draw another creature before Oblivion Sowers 1, 2, and 3 shred him to pieces.

    Board In: 2 Disenchant, 1 Damnation; Board Out: 2 Map, 1 Oblivion Sower

    G2 - We both mull to six. The details are hazy right now, but I cast Ulamog and remove two auras attached to his bogle. He has me at 1 life with a bogle and some aura that gives it protection from creatures. I attack with Ulamog, then cast oblivon sower to play almost every land in his deck. I have a ton of mana and if I had a second Ulamog, this match would be over. Alas, we go to G3.

    G3 - He mulls to five again and tries to rancor dryad arbor on turn 2. I go for the throat on his drayd in response and he loses two cards. After that, he's trapped on one land while eldrazi finish him.

    Record: 5-1 (10-6)

    Match 7: U/R Twin

    G1 - I race Vendilion Clique and burn after using discard to deprive him of his cantrips. Fortunately, its a race I win even though I'm at 3.

    Board In: 2 Disenchant, 1 Surgical Extraction, 2 Celestial Purge; Board Out: 1 Damnation, 1 Oblivion Sower, 2 Wasteland Stranger, 1 Map

    G2 - He plays one of the Jaces (I can't remember which version), but he forgets to use it and I attack Jace and send the blue headed freak to the grave. I can't remember what happened clearly, but he gives me a heart attack when I have him at 1 and he refuses to concede, pretending to have the twin combo. He remands a blight herder at one point, but apparently he didn't get the memo that they trigger on cast instead of ETB.

    Record: 6-1 (12-6)

    Match 8: Jeskai Control

    G1: Opponent is late and receives a game loss. Judge tells us to proceed to game 2 without sideboarding.

    G2: I mull to six and use discard to relieve him of a path to exile. I cast double relic, expedition map, oblivion sower, and sculpt my manabase until I'm playing eldrazi every turn. He's overwhelmed against this onslaught, especially as I have double GQ to answer his manlands.

    Record: 7-1 (14-6)

    My record is enough to get into Top 8 and we all split prize tickets rather than endure another potential 3 rounds. I have enough for two boxes of modern masters. Not bad for my first major modern tournament Kekeke Eager to see what Oath brings to the table!
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 5

    posted a message on <>Bx Eldrazi Processors
    Hey guys, just came back from GP Oakland Modern showdown. Here's my tournament report:



    Yeah, no marsh flats, but I didn't even notice. Caves of Koilos might even be better if the eldrazi in Oath are worth running.

    No bojuka bog either, as I don't want tap lands screwing up my curve. Plus, bog has literally cost me a mox in the past (couldn't cast a spell in a legacy finals because of the stupid bog), so you won't catch me running it in any deck I play.

    My board is set up for tron and the mirror, as I was expecting a lot of eldrazi decks.

    Match 1: Tron

    G1 - I go turn 1 inquisition and take his sylvan scrying. He rips a map off the top, assembles the Urzatron and gets a Karn down on Turn 3. Wasteland strangler stalls for two turns, but to no avail.

    Board In - 2 Stony Silence, 2 Crucible of Worlds, 2 Surgical Extraction, 1 Ghost Quarter, 2 Disenchant; Board Out - 1 Wasteland Stranger, 2 Go For the Throat, 4 Lingering Souls and 2 Expedition Map

    G2 - Another turn 1 inquisition and I take his crucible of worlds. He has a terrible hand with treble Urza Power Plant and a Pyroclasm. Turn 2 stony silence shuts off all the artifacts he draws into while Blight Herder beats down.I draw a ghost quarter to answer an Urza's mine, but it's overkill at that point.

    G3 - I open turn 1 thoughtseize and take a map from his hand. I land stony silence again and we trade crucibles as I disenchant his while he nature's claim mine. I beat down with Blight Herder and tokens for a couple of turns. He eventually draws into the Urza Tron and casts Wurmcoil Engine, but I have the path for it. A turn later, Oblivion sower comes down and I take double ghost quarter from the top of his deck and nuke his only Urza's Mine and sole green source.

    Record: 1-0 (2-1)

    Match 2: Infect

    G1 - My opening hand contains three removal spells: path, go for the throat, and wasteland stranger. I'm in complete control of the game as I path his Turn 2 Inkmoth Nexus and both his basic lands are in his opening hand. LOL. His mana dork is killed by wasteland stranger as I process his Inkmoth. I play a blight herder and oblivion sower. He's at 10 facing lethal on the board next turn when he swings his other inkmoth and pumps it for 10 exactly. I have no blockers or removal except for the go for the throat.

    Anyone see the misplay? I should have go for the throat his mana dork and stolen his first Inkmoth Nexus so that I could block instead of processing it back into the graveyard.

    Board In - 2 Disenchant, 1 Damnation; Board Out - 2 Expedition Map, 1 Oblivion Sower

    G2 - I'm stuck on 1 caves, 2 ghost quarter, and an eye while blighted agent slowly eats me away. I path his spellskite, but it doesn't stop the beats. I pray for a second black source to cast the damnation in my hand, but he has the spell pierce for it anyway.

    Record: 1-1 (2-3)

    Match 3: Azaban

    G1 - We trade discard and spirit tokens. He draws into two 'goyfs, but they're no match for 2 relics. Oblivion sowers and Blight Herders do him in while a topdeck Liliana can do nothing but sac an eldrazi token.

    Board In - 2 Celestial Purge, 1 Damnation; Board Out - 2 Inquisition, 1 Thoughtseize

    G2 - We both mull to five. We each have 3 lands and two spells, double thoughtseize for him and double damnation for me. After he reliefs me of my mass removal, I top deck relic and double souls. He tries to race him with 'goyf, but it's the most pathetic 'goyf ever as its always a 0/1 thanks to relic.

    Record: 2-1 (4-3)

    Match 4: Merfolk, splashing white for stony silence and path.

    G1 1 I go turn 1 inquisition, turn 2 path lord, turn 3 path lord, turn 4 lingering souls. He mistakes me for BW tokens until I cast Relic and Blight Herder, processing the two lords I path earlier. Despite my awesome opening, he manages to get double master of waves down with 2 more lords. I GQ my spreading seas land and block several masters (merfolk and elemental lords respectively), but the elemental tokens still do me in.

    Board In: 1 Damnation; Board Out: 1 Oblivion Sower

    G2 - He goes turn 2 stony silence. I shrug and cast double lingering souls. He negates one, but he can't race 6 spirit tokens while his lords get hit by spot removal.

    Board In: 1 Surgical Extraction; Board Out: 1 Expedition Map

    G3 - I thoughtseize him turn one and take one of two spreading seas. I answer his master of waves with path and then follow it up with oblivion sower for land. Still, he manages to assemble an army of fish. Ulamog finally shows up, removing a master and a lord. I fetch a vault of the archangel with my sole map, going from 1 life to 13. He concedes.

    Record: 3-1 (6-4)

    Match 5: Jeskai Control

    G1 - I punt this one so hard. Early discard shreds his land and double relic insures that Blight Herders are spawning eldrazi. I leave his snapcaster mages in hand because they're only 2/1 beaters with no graveyard. I put a supreme verdict back into his graveyard while he has 5 lands. He top decks the sixth, flashes back the verdict with a snapcaster, and suddenly all my dudes are dead. He draws a manland and proceeds to beat me with it, racing an oblivion sower. I use eye to fetch Ulamog. Instead of casting Ulamog and removing the manland though, I decide to fetch for vault and attack with oblivion sower, activating vault to gain life. Actually, my opponent paths the sower and suddenly I'm dead. I'm so great at Magic.

    Board In: 2 Crucible, 1 Ghost Quarter; Board Out: 1 Vault, 2 Wasteland Stranger

    G2 - Honestly, I don't remember this game at all, but I won. Sorry guys.

    G3 - He's stuck on two lands while I set up the GQ/Crucible lock with an eldrazi of some sort beating his face in.

    Record: 4-1 (8-5)

    Match 6: Bogles

    G1 - He mulls to five and I discard his only creature on the play. He can't draw another creature before Oblivion Sowers 1, 2, and 3 shred him to pieces.

    Board In: 2 Disenchant, 1 Damnation; Board Out: 2 Map, 1 Oblivion Sower

    G2 - We both mull to six. The details are hazy right now, but I cast Ulamog and remove two auras attached to his bogle. He has me at 1 life with a bogle and some aura that gives it protection from creatures. I attack with Ulamog, then cast oblivon sower to play almost every land in his deck. I have a ton of mana and if I had a second Ulamog, this match would be over. Alas, we go to G3.

    G3 - He mulls to five again and tries to rancor dryad arbor on turn 2. I go for the throat on his drayd in response and he loses two cards. After that, he's trapped on one land while eldrazi finish him.

    Record: 5-1 (10-6)

    Match 7: U/R Twin

    G1 - I race Vendilion Clique and burn after using discard to deprive him of his cantrips. Fortunately, its a race I win even though I'm at 3.

    Board In: 2 Disenchant, 1 Surgical Extraction, 2 Celestial Purge; Board Out: 1 Damnation, 1 Oblivion Sower, 2 Wasteland Stranger, 1 Map

    G2 - He plays one of the Jaces (I can't remember which version), but he forgets to use it and I attack Jace and send the blue headed freak to the grave. I can't remember what happened clearly, but he gives me a heart attack when I have him at 1 and he refuses to concede, pretending to have the twin combo. He remands a blight herder at one point, but apparently he didn't get the memo that they trigger on cast instead of ETB.

    Record: 6-1 (12-6)

    Match 8: Jeskai Control

    G1: Opponent is late and receives a game loss. Judge tells us to proceed to game 2 without sideboarding.

    G2: I mull to six and use discard to relieve him of a path to exile. I cast double relic, expedition map, oblivion sower, and sculpt my manabase until I'm playing eldrazi every turn. He's overwhelmed against this onslaught, especially as I have double GQ to answer his manlands.

    Record: 7-1 (14-6)

    My record is enough to get into Top 8 and we all split prize tickets rather than endure another potential 3 rounds. I have enough for two boxes of modern masters. Not bad for my first major modern tournament Kekeke Eager to see what Oath brings to the table!
    Posted in: Modern Archives
  • 1

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor
    Quote from Darksteel_Eye »

    The new white eldrazi looks good, probably a sideboard option right now. Yet again a card I see making more impact on the standard deck not as much for the modern. It's cool to blink a herder tho and get more scions!!!


    Doesn't work. Blight herder triggers on cast, not ETB.
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on BW Eldrazi Processor


    The 4 ghost quarters main stand out to me. It was clearly a good choice given the number of Tron that made Day 2, but it might make a shaky manabase even more unstable...
    Posted in: Deck Creation (Modern)
  • 0

    posted a message on Eye of Ugin and Eldrazi Temple
    There's threads for this is Market Street. The reason is because of the new Modern deck, Bx Processors. Look it up. It's a pretty sweet deck and BW Processors is actually what I'm playing now. Grin


    This. Plus there's anticipation that new cards from Oath might boost the deck into Tier 2, maybe even Tier 1.
    Posted in: Magic General
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.