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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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.
Hilary does. She got horns***gled 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.
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.
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.
...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.
[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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Three out of five so far! Come on brainstorm/swords to plowshares!
They let someone else draw Necropotence. New players don't know why its called "the skull." Way to ruin iconic art wotc
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.
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.
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.