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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Skred Red won GP Dallas. It runs two.
http://magic.wizards.com/en/events/coverage/gpdfw16/top-8-decklists-2016-11-06
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 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.
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.
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?
Obama founded ISIS and Hillary Clinton is the co-founder.
Yeah, its going to be like this from now
until November 8until his kids can inherit his money.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.
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!
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)
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.
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.
Agreed, except for your conclusion.
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?
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.
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.
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.