Preordain is not getting unbanned for the same reason GSZ will never be unbanned. Wizards does not like cards that increase consistency too efficiently and create repetitive gamestates.
I should point out that Brock Turner did not get off scot-free. He was forced to register as a sexual offender for life. You can make the argument that is far worse than serving only a few months in jail. Being a registered sex offender is society's equivalent of a scarlet letter and completely ruins your life in so many ways imaginable.
The Democrats have presented themselves nationally as the party of inclusiveness, and virtually all elements of their policies converge on this.
Since their positions are all connected under a single umbrella, it's fairly easy to present a unified front.
The Republicans are not unified. It's hard to unify when your party is increasingly nothing more than conservatism towards everything under the sun.
Here's the thing though- social liberals have to understand that, as far as state politics are concerned, the Republicans tend to win. It's fairly easy to lose sight of this, what with social media and the fact that the random media you see on aggregate sites these days seem to do nothing but endorse some form of social liberalism, but the fact of the matter is-
I'm sure there are plenty of people who express the same opinion as you, except the opposite as far as the positions are concerned.
I say this because I think that means some important things.
I should point out that some of those GOP governors, such as Charlie Baker and Larry Hogan would be mercilessly branded as RINOs by the gatekeepers of the GOP. They are moderate Republicans in heavily blue states.
State politics is a lot different than national politics. At the state level you don't have to go through all the gatekeepers that will subject you to purity tests.
And when the Democrats lost the South, it went to the Republicans. And when the Republicans lost the black vote, it went to the Democrats. In a two-party system, voter preferences are a game of ping-pong. Predicting that the GOP is never going to be a viable party again ever is essentially predicting that the Democrats are never going to alienate another voting bloc again ever. Which seems just a little bit optimistic (or pessimistic, depending).
You see it as optimistic/pessimistic. I see it as realistic.
Whoever wants to become the GOP nominee for president in 2020 has to win over Trump supporters in some way, as well as the media they represent (Breitbart, talk radio, etc.). That person will be subjected to a brutal Trump purity test where they will be mercilessly singled out as being a globalist elite if there is even one thing they don't like about him/her. Then that person will be subjected to ANOTHER purity test, this time from movement conservatives. If that person is not a "true conservative", they will be hammered by those people next. Then that person has to win over the establishment itself.
It is virtually impossible to meet all those criteria, which is a major reason why the GOP is collapsing. But let's say this hypothetical individual does somehow make everyone in the GOP happy and wins the nomination. Then you get to the general election. That person will be endlessly criticized from all fronts by the opposition; from being racist (because they pandered to Trumpists), to being "too conservative" (for winning over movement conservatives) to being "out of touch" (just ask Mitt Romney). Hillary will also have the incumbent advantage, and unless the bottom completely drops out of the of the economy during her first term, I expect her to be re-elected in 2020. She has the demographic and electoral college advantage. I don't expect Democrats to alienate any voting blocs like Republicans have done. They could get greedy and try to go all-in with sweeping progressive reforms but given how the country has gone farther and farther to the left they might be able to get away with 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.
I don't see how the GOP can get those voters back. Typically when you lose a voting block it is lost for good.
Democrats learned this back in the 60s when they came out and supported the Civil Rights Act. Racist whites like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace permanently left the party and Democrats lost the South for good. The GOP took advantage of this and essentially hijacked the South by welcoming these people into their party. Those whites never went back to the Democratic party, ever. Though I'm sure Democrats are glad that didn't happen...
The GOP will be facing a similar situation with minorities. In fact, they're already there with black voters. Republicans have lost black voters permanently and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat every single election. Hispanics and Asians will follow suit. No amount of trying to reclaim old voters will undo the damage that has been done. Even if they successfully get rid of the racists those people still won't be convinced that the GOP has reconciled.
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.
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.
Well, the founding fathers disliked democracy for the very possibility that it may produce Trump, or a Trump-like figure.
So I'd say that democracy is the exact reason why we have Trump running for the Presidency today.
Democracy. Working as intended. Giving voices to everyone who is legally allowed a voice.
Counterpoint (probably playing devil's advocate here): a good deal of Trump's primary wins were won with a plurality of votes and not an actual majority. Despite this shortcoming, he would still get ALL of the delegates in certain primaries that were winner-take-all systems.
If anything, it's an institutional failure of the first past the post system.
SaffronOlive is entirely to blame for the Song of the Dryads price spike and has been for a few other spikes. In fact, you can devise a very simple flowchart for it:
1. Does SaffronOlive have a new article out?
2. If yes, buy out all cards of the deck that were in the article.
3. If no, wait until #2 happens.
The hilarious part is that this is the wrong card to speculate on. Song of the Dryads is getting reprinted next year in the Commander Anthology set. People are trying WAY TOO HARD at convincing themselves that the secondary market is a viable replacement for buying stocks listed on the Dow Jones Index.
Honestly I thought Oliver was too gentle on Stein. The emphasis on the album was fake-outrage, and took up a lot of time that could have been spent making it clear that she has barely more experience than Donald Trump and considerably fewer credentials than Sarah Palin.
Given that Oliver is quite progressive it makes sense he would go easy on Stein and hammer Johnson.
Maybe. But he's already survived so many things that ought to immediately disqualify a candidate from the presidency. And like his tax returns, this shouldn't exactly be a surprise for anyone. If people are reconsidering their allegiance to him after this, I'd like to ask them where the hell they've been for all the other disgusting statements he's made, or for Ivana's deposition that he violently raped her which we've known about for over a year. What sort of voter thought Trump was presidential material until today, and is only now coming to the realization that he may in fact be a sick sociopathic bastard?
This election season has been... frustrating.
If there's one takeway from Trump and his antics, it's the fact that he has successfully abused the country's polarization. If this election were 50 years ago, Trump would get Goldwatered. People used to split their tickets far more than they do now. Nowadays most people vote straight down the ticket as all D or R regardless of who is running.
I bought a playset of BBE just in case, since they were only like $3/ea, but I don't have my hopes set too high. I do still have my fingers crossed for a Splinter Twin unban, though. Still salty.
I get the feeling many people who are upset about the Twin ban are just mad that they no longer have a deck that has zero opportunity cost attached to it.
If you want to play a combo deck, you have to accept the fact that you will have a shaky contingency plan if your plan A fails. If you're a control deck, you have to accept the fact you can't just win games out of nowhere and that you need to grind someone out of the game. Twin erased both of these weaknesses by combining both the strengths of combo and control into a single deck.
Given that he set up his campaign HQ in Salt Lake City, I'm buying the idea that he's there just to keep Gary Johnson from winning Utah. He is on the ballot on so few states, but it's not a coincidence he's on the ballot in Utah. McMullin is a Mormon and a stock neoconservative (which is why people like Bill Kristol and the rest of National Review are stumping for him). He is the perfect candidate to win votes in Utah.
The ultimate nightmare for Republicans is *not* if Hillary wins the election in a blowout, but rather Johnson winning Utah. If Hillary wins, the GOP simply comes back in 2020 while they stonewall Hillary for four years. But if Johnson wins Utah, that would be a historically defining moment that would give Libertarians actual legitimacy as being the first third-party to win a state in almost 50 years. The last time a third party won states was 1968, when George Wallace won a bunch of Southern states. Not surprisingly, Wallace's presidential run came with a massive, massive political realignment in the US that saw Democrats lose the South for good. If Johnson won Utah (and even another Mountain West state or two), there would likely be another political realignment that would shift the narrative to the GOP being a dying party seeing as they lost their safest state to a third party.
Yeah, Johnson got screwed here. The odds Donald J. Trump knew where Aleppo was (before all this) are approximately zero percent, but instead Matt Lauer asks him if he's "ready to be President".
Still, politics are unfair. At the end of the day what matters is that this is the first time Johnson has gotten real mainstream media coverage, so a fair number of voters have been introduced to him as Mr. What's-Aleppo Guy. Bye-bye Johnson.
I find it really odd that Zack Snyder just keeps failing up. That usually only happens with Hollywood executives, not directors. He did Sucker Punch, which was a complete diaster, only to be rewarded with Man of Steel, which was not particularly successful or well received. Then what does WB do? Attempt to build an entire cinematic universe on Snyder's flawed, unsophisticated attempt at Superman and put Snyder in charge of the whole thing. But his first attempt at creating an entire DCEU blows up in WB's face, so what do they do? Give him the Justice League and creative input on all future DC movies. WTF? Seriously, WTF? Does he have photos of studio execs molesting children?
His wife is a film exec. Her connections are likely the main reason why Zack Snyder keeps getting extra chances.
He could have been axed after BvS but the problem was they are just about ready to start filming Justice League by the time BvS was released. While getting rid of a director right before filming doesn't always result in a disaster (see Ant-Man and Thor 2), knowing WB/DC's track record it probably wouldn't have gone too well. Probably would have mirrored something like what happened with X-Men the Last Stand, when Bryan Singer was yanked and Brett Ratner was hastily put into the director's chair to take on that $210 million monstrosity.
When I compare cards, I look at them from a game theory point of view. I don't take expansion symbols, rarity, or any of that into account. I look at the functionality of the cards (ie what it says on the card).
Both elves are the exact same at what they do. The only thing different are their names (which is irrelevant because Meddling Mage can equally block either one from being played).
Tyler Durden, saying Ashcoat Bears is strictly better than Grizzly Bears is just plain incorrect. Maybe you won't come across a crazy Mindslaver situation over the course of a game, but the fact of the matter is, that situation is possible in a game of Magic and it exists. This throws the 100% better in every single situation out of the window, and it completely invalidates the argument that Ashcoat is strictly better than Grizzly.
Mindslaver makes sure that "strictly better" doesn't exist in Magic. It still boggles my mind how people haven't grasped onto that concept yet.
BTW, Murganda Petroglyphs makes it so Grizzly Bears is better than Ashcoat Bears.
I should point out that some of those GOP governors, such as Charlie Baker and Larry Hogan would be mercilessly branded as RINOs by the gatekeepers of the GOP. They are moderate Republicans in heavily blue states.
State politics is a lot different than national politics. At the state level you don't have to go through all the gatekeepers that will subject you to purity tests.
You see it as optimistic/pessimistic. I see it as realistic.
Whoever wants to become the GOP nominee for president in 2020 has to win over Trump supporters in some way, as well as the media they represent (Breitbart, talk radio, etc.). That person will be subjected to a brutal Trump purity test where they will be mercilessly singled out as being a globalist elite if there is even one thing they don't like about him/her. Then that person will be subjected to ANOTHER purity test, this time from movement conservatives. If that person is not a "true conservative", they will be hammered by those people next. Then that person has to win over the establishment itself.
It is virtually impossible to meet all those criteria, which is a major reason why the GOP is collapsing. But let's say this hypothetical individual does somehow make everyone in the GOP happy and wins the nomination. Then you get to the general election. That person will be endlessly criticized from all fronts by the opposition; from being racist (because they pandered to Trumpists), to being "too conservative" (for winning over movement conservatives) to being "out of touch" (just ask Mitt Romney). Hillary will also have the incumbent advantage, and unless the bottom completely drops out of the of the economy during her first term, I expect her to be re-elected in 2020. She has the demographic and electoral college advantage. I don't expect Democrats to alienate any voting blocs like Republicans have done. They could get greedy and try to go all-in with sweeping progressive reforms but given how the country has gone farther and farther to the left they might be able to get away with it.
I don't see how the GOP can get those voters back. Typically when you lose a voting block it is lost for good.
Democrats learned this back in the 60s when they came out and supported the Civil Rights Act. Racist whites like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace permanently left the party and Democrats lost the South for good. The GOP took advantage of this and essentially hijacked the South by welcoming these people into their party. Those whites never went back to the Democratic party, ever. Though I'm sure Democrats are glad that didn't happen...
The GOP will be facing a similar situation with minorities. In fact, they're already there with black voters. Republicans have lost black voters permanently and they overwhelmingly vote Democrat every single election. Hispanics and Asians will follow suit. No amount of trying to reclaim old voters will undo the damage that has been done. Even if they successfully get rid of the racists those people still won't be convinced that the GOP has reconciled.
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.
Counterpoint (probably playing devil's advocate here): a good deal of Trump's primary wins were won with a plurality of votes and not an actual majority. Despite this shortcoming, he would still get ALL of the delegates in certain primaries that were winner-take-all systems.
If anything, it's an institutional failure of the first past the post system.
1. Does SaffronOlive have a new article out?
2. If yes, buy out all cards of the deck that were in the article.
3. If no, wait until #2 happens.
The hilarious part is that this is the wrong card to speculate on. Song of the Dryads is getting reprinted next year in the Commander Anthology set. People are trying WAY TOO HARD at convincing themselves that the secondary market is a viable replacement for buying stocks listed on the Dow Jones Index.
Given that Oliver is quite progressive it makes sense he would go easy on Stein and hammer Johnson.
If there's one takeway from Trump and his antics, it's the fact that he has successfully abused the country's polarization. If this election were 50 years ago, Trump would get Goldwatered. People used to split their tickets far more than they do now. Nowadays most people vote straight down the ticket as all D or R regardless of who is running.
I get the feeling many people who are upset about the Twin ban are just mad that they no longer have a deck that has zero opportunity cost attached to it.
If you want to play a combo deck, you have to accept the fact that you will have a shaky contingency plan if your plan A fails. If you're a control deck, you have to accept the fact you can't just win games out of nowhere and that you need to grind someone out of the game. Twin erased both of these weaknesses by combining both the strengths of combo and control into a single deck.
The ultimate nightmare for Republicans is *not* if Hillary wins the election in a blowout, but rather Johnson winning Utah. If Hillary wins, the GOP simply comes back in 2020 while they stonewall Hillary for four years. But if Johnson wins Utah, that would be a historically defining moment that would give Libertarians actual legitimacy as being the first third-party to win a state in almost 50 years. The last time a third party won states was 1968, when George Wallace won a bunch of Southern states. Not surprisingly, Wallace's presidential run came with a massive, massive political realignment in the US that saw Democrats lose the South for good. If Johnson won Utah (and even another Mountain West state or two), there would likely be another political realignment that would shift the narrative to the GOP being a dying party seeing as they lost their safest state to a third party.
I don't see this ending his campaign by a longshot. In fact, I think he will be getting into the debates. Mitch Daniels (who is on the debate commission) is openly advocating for Johnson and Weld to be in the debates.
His wife is a film exec. Her connections are likely the main reason why Zack Snyder keeps getting extra chances.
He could have been axed after BvS but the problem was they are just about ready to start filming Justice League by the time BvS was released. While getting rid of a director right before filming doesn't always result in a disaster (see Ant-Man and Thor 2), knowing WB/DC's track record it probably wouldn't have gone too well. Probably would have mirrored something like what happened with X-Men the Last Stand, when Bryan Singer was yanked and Brett Ratner was hastily put into the director's chair to take on that $210 million monstrosity.