Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. BTW, I am rather shocked that people think Jon should have had Slynt's tongue removed...
  3. Harsh justice is justice still, i.e. the punishment is not completely out of range for the offence. Meaning, if Slynt's punishment was not only harsh but also unjust, Stannis would have had issues with it. And in our world, people were perfectly fine with burning heretics... Cannibalism is a huge offence against the societal taboos, a sin against the gods, and Stannis' god is R'hllor. I'd never worship such a god and I think Stannis made a huge mistake by his choice, but he had the men burnt for this reason, not out of innate cruelty or perversion like Aerys used to.
  4. OldGimletEye

    U.S. Politics- SCOTUS 2: The Election Strikes Back

    I think I have few fundamental problems with this. 1. I think we have all had friends that have done something we found annoying. And generally, you don’t, when speaking to a long term friend say, “Hey you fuckin’ idiot what in the hell are you doing!” in front of bunch of people. Not if you want to keep them as friend. And Trump calling the countries of the European Union the real enemy is nonsense. I’m sure we sometimes get on their nerves and sometimes they get on ours. But that is normal for long term friendships. There is way to handle such matters. 2. Trump simply misunderstands trade. As I’ve written before there can be some real problems with free trade, like certain classes of workers being hit very hard. But Trump’s basic idea is that trade deficits means America is losing in some sense. That is just not true. And part of the reason, the US runs deficits likely has to do with the US position as the world’s banker and monetary hegemon. 3. If Republicans think that Trump is using his superior business skills to just negotiate a better deal, then I think they are being extremely delusional. Not that the Republican Party would do such a thing. And of course Trump’s superior bidnessman skills are extremely suspect. Normally, yes, I would think that increasing the supply of labor would cause wages to go down. That would be my first inclination. But, there have been a variety of econometric studies that show that the impact of immigrant labor on US native wages is very small. The two groups that seem most affected by the increase of immigrant labor is a certain segment of American laborers, those primarily without high school degrees, and the immigrants themselves. What’s going here? Likely immigrant labor is complement to American labor and not a complete substitute, at least within historical levels. Overall, I think the current level of immigration to the United States is a net positive. And we probably could increase legal immigration without too much negative effect on native labor’s wages. So aTrump’s immigration bashing is a non issue and we really have bigger fish to fry. Now some on the left are joining the traditional libertarian position of having complete open borders at this time, pointing to the numerous studies that have examined immigrations effect on native wages. On this point, I’m a bit more skittish. Mainly, for the reason, forecasting too far out of sample can be problematic exercise. I’d prefer us to adopt a more incremental approach. What I mean is expand legal immigration and see how it goes. If it doesn’t look like it is causing too many problems, then expand it more. There are reasons to think that eventually having more open boarders could be very welfare improving for both US residents and non US residents. However, if open boarders were done tomorrow, the US economy might have trouble adsorbing them all into the labor market. But, again, Trump’s complaints about immigration at its current levels is seemingly a non issue and the US economy has bigger fish to fry.
  5. MostlyMoody

    Lizard Lions in the Neck

    What's more likely - a made up species of 'crocodiles' living in cold swamps or lemons growing in cooler climates? We know from text that tropical fruit is grown in colder climates via greenhouses. If they could be grown in a natural environment why even have those greenhouses at all?
  6. cyberdirectorfreedom

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    Love the tone. Maybe I should rephrase: what's laughable or insane about this thread? People have different opinions than you do? Madness. The only thing laughable about this thread is your way of dealing with people with different opinions. Your mockery and your self-righteous, arrogant superiority only serve to lessen your own position. This is supposed to be a civil discussion, and the only thing you choose to offer is snide remarks and insults. Laughable indeed. Of course he's a judge. He's the proverbial Judge, Jury and Executioner. Part and parcel with being a Lord. Never said he should allow Slynt's behaviour. Except Jon didn't die in the ice cells. So, it's not necessarily a death sentence, if they're released. It certainly needed to be addressed. Publicly whipping Slynt and parting him from Thorne would've put a stop to Slynt's nonsense. Death was hardly necessary. I could say the reverse. There have been some thorough, thoughtful and clear description of the events which lead to Slynt's execution that infer it was emotionally charged. If those arguments can't convince the "Slynt's death was necessary" camp, I doubt any argument is going to. I daresay that few of us are on the fence about this topic. That doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. For most of us, we don't feel the way we do because we've missed something. There's nothing to point out that make someone think "oh, I hadn't thought of that", because we have, on both sides of the discussion. We know the text, we've just interpreted it differently. There may be some people on the fence, however, who perhaps hadn't thought of some interpretation, or have forgotten some fact, and these discussions could serve them well, to have differing opinions calmly discussed, to be able to decide which interpretation they favour. I'm sure that most of us discussing this passionately have thought of both interpretations, and others, but have come to the conclusion that one is right. You're not going to wow someone with something they've already considered. Having him whipped, imprisoned in the ice cells for a time or having his tongue out are a few examples. And just this one chance. The Wall is overseen by a Lord, and justice is one of the duties of a Lord. Perhaps the difference is that the Greatjon's "punishment" was immediate, whereas Slynt's wasn't. Post-punishment, it seems both men would've followed orders, only Slynt's punishment was death. Yet she is demanding it, and I'm sure she expects them to obey her. Of course I see the difference, but it's the closest possible situations she's been in (except, perhaps, with Jorah's exile, in which he's quite insubordinate and mouthy, but to which she chooses to send him away (though that's out of emotion, of course, so it hardly applies to thoughts of impartiality)), and she doesn't react at all in the way you are suggesting. That's my point. When did I say only an idiot would do so? In fact, I think I made it quite clear that I think it's entirely possible that someone who is not an idiot would make such a decision. I'm going to quote myself here: So I obviously don't think that only an idiot would take such action. Also, to call Slynt's actions "repeated" defiance is a bit of a stretch. This is the first offence. Both refusals - the one the night before and the one on the day of his death - were the same offense, refusing the same order. He hasn't shown that he can never be trusted or made to be of use, just that he'll need some punishment. Firstly, it's not necessarily a capital offense. Other options of punishment are available. Secondly, there's no reason to assume he can't be made to not do so again. Jon hasn't tried to punish him even once, to see how he'd react in future. It's all supposition, with no backing. He showed that he wouldn't obey this one order without punishment, but that doesn't mean that he could never be made to fall in line. How so? Because you agree with it? You seem to be suggesting that because Jon made this reasoning, that it must be sound reasoning. Is it not possible he could be wrong? I'd say so. In fact, I say it's trivially easy to push holes in some of his reasoning, especially the idea that Slynty (accidentally made that typo there, but I kind of like it, so I'm keeping Slynty in, here) would continue plotting with Thorne immediately on release from prison; this is despite the fact that part of the reason for sending Slynt to Greyguard is to part the two of them. That's a direct contradiction. Not at all solid reasoning. Jump through hoops? It's not jumping through hoops to not choose a last resort first. Not even a close to what I was saying. What I said was that if Jon were to choose to remove Slynt's tongue, that having him command Greyguard would be more difficult, so if Jon were to choose to punish him in that way, he'd also need to choose to do something else with Slynt. Never did I say that Slynt should be free to choose what he does, nor that anyone else should. Come on... Never said he didn't try, just that he abandoned that attempt almost immediately, at the first opportunity. It's disingenuous to pretend I've said otherwise. Slynt thought he was in a superior position. He was wrong, obviously. If he was shown this, there's no reason to assume he wouldn't become sufficiently obedient. There is, in fact, reason to believe that he would become obedient, as his final words clearly show. That was when he came to the conclusion that his position was weaker than he thought, and he espouses obedience. Of course, Jon couldn't know this before choosing to kill him, so that's hardly marks against him, but it's still worth noting. Sure, but is that the whole reason? Perhaps not. Hypothetical: During the day, Jon thinks to himself that it's cold (or perhaps he doesn't even bother, it's always quite cold at the Wall). Later in the day, he needs to go outside. He walks to the pegs on which he keeps his cloaks. He has two cloaks. Which of the following do you think is a more likely: ""This cloak is clean enough," Jon thought, pulling the cloak around himself and stepping out the door." Or: ""This cloak is clean enough," Jon thought, "and it's also quite cold, so I need a cloak." He pulled the cloak around himself, and stepped out the door." Now, I don't know about you, but I'm leaning strongly towards the first one. The cold is an obvious potential reason to desire a cloak, especially if he'd been thinking of it earlier. This hypothetical is, of course, rather petty, and perhaps Jon's desire for vengeance isn't quite so patently obvious as "people wear cloaks because it's cold", but the point remains that it something doesn't need to be said during a decision for it to be a reason said decision was made. I'm certainly saying it's possible. Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Stannis was even present when Slynt openly defied Jon. If he was out in the yard, drawn by the commotion, as I think he was, he'd only have seen Slynt mouthing off about not being intimidated by Jon and such. I'm sure a lot of people go to their death mouthing off about their executioner. So, for reasons that Stannis nodded, there are plenty. One, as I mentioned earlier, is that Stannis often seems to be a bit petty, and he obviously wants Slynt dead. Another is that he might be approving of the fact that Jon didn't allow Slynt's "connections and friends" to overpower him, and that he made a decision of his own, regardless of how it might be taken in King's Landing, or by Slynt's friends. Do what you think is right, regardless of the potential backlash. Sounds like Stannis. There are other reasons. He could have just been reassuring Jon that he wouldn't involve himself, regardless of how he feels. Jon's men are his to deal with. Hell, it could've just been a greeting. People often nod at each other as a greeting (this seems unlikely, but not impossible). Perhaps he was agreeing that Jon was right. But does that make it right? Stannis is known to be just, though quite harsh. "My father always said you were a just man." Just but harsh had been Lord Eddard's exact words, but Jon did not think it would be wise to share that. The Greatjon's reaction shows how reasonable he thought Robb was being. It enraged him. At the point Robb would be warring against the Greatjon, he'd have just previously warred against the Crown, which is, of course, illegal. Robb is obviously willing to go outside the law, so who knows if it'd actually be lawful. You'll notice that Hoster Tully didn't have Walder Frey killed for arriving at the Trident too late (thereby disobeying his Liege, surely). It's not so cut and dried as all that. And I'm sure that you can't be the one who holds the position that water is dry. No, you are right, and I am wrong, is that how it is? The situation is murkier than you're making it out to be. Yeah, I'm completely wrong here. I've always thought that cajole had a threatening connotation. I am, evidently, wrong. I used the word to mean a somewhat lighter form of threatening or intimidating. It... simply doesn't mean that. I feel like quite the ass. I guess replace "cajole" with "intimidate", and I'm saying what I actually mean. Damn. I've never said it was petty. It warranted some severe punishment, something that I've not disputed once. I'm not whitewashing anything, not trying to hide his crimes. What Slynt did was stupid and dangerous, and it necessitated action. It did not necessitate his death, however. No? It obviously shocked Slynt. Ser Alliser and Bowen Marsh obviously don't approve. The decision almost caused a small war when it was made. Janos Slynt's face went as white as milk. The spoon slipped from his fingers. Edd and Emmett crossed the room, their footsteps ringing on the stone floor. Bowen Marsh's mouth opened and closed though no words came out. Ser Alliser Thorne reached for his sword hilt. Half the men in the hall were on their feet. Southron knights and men-at-arms, loyal to King Stannis or the red woman or both, and Sworn Brothers of the Night's Watch. Some had chosen Jon to be their lord commander. Others had cast their stones for Bowen Marsh, Ser Denys Mallister, Cotter Pyke … and some for Janos Slynt. Hundreds of them, as I recall. Jon wondered how many of those men were in the cellar right now. For a moment the world balanced on a sword's edge. Then Ser Alliser stepped aside, everything calmed down. But it certainly looks to me that the decision caused a lot of tension. I find your inability to see it to be just as puzzling. The vast majority of the brother's of the Watch, loyal and useful, one and all, are scum the likes of which you'd not choose to associate, should you be able to avoid it. Rapists, thieves, killers, traitors, jaywalkers, you name it, the Wall has it. The filthy animal who raped all of those septas, and branded himself for each one so he wouldn't forget any of them, for instance. There's some filth on the Wall that make Slynt look like a saint. Yet they can obey. They can be trusted (enough). We have no idea what they'd have been like at the beginning, but I don't imagine they'd have been quite so servile as they are now. Slynt could be just as loyal, or more, given time to properly adjust to his new situation. With a more lenient Lord Commander, like those others had. Eventually, just like petulant children who didn't like that their parents didn't let them do whatever they pleased can grow to appreciate their parents, Slynt might even come to be thankful for Jon. We'll never know. Not any man. Some will go to their deaths spitting their defiance. Karstark, for instance. ""Would you speak a final word?" "Kill me, and be cursed. You are no king of mine." The axe crashed down." He'd never have changed, never repented, and was being punished for a crime already committed that couldn't be taken back. Worse than Slynt's actions on the Wall, and yet defiant to the end. To turn back at that point would have been the height of foolishness, I'll say that. He'd forever have been seen as too weak to follow through. Regardless of whether or not it made Slynt fall in line, it'd show that doing what Slynt did will be scarcely punished. Bit of fear, repentance, acceptance. That'd never do. That said, there are ways of putting the fear of death in someone without actually being moments from killing them. That's what Jon should've done, and we can see it would've worked. Surely he wasn't completely loyal before his outburst, or he'd have just followed orders. As you are saying Slynt should have. Crimes he shouldn't be judged for, on the Wall. The fact he's never seen Harrenhal is irrelevant, he was still it's Lord, and was treated as such. Of course he should have. Just as Jon should've reacted more submissively when he found out he was to be a Steward. Jon grew out of that quickly enough. I'm sure there were ways to whip Slynt's attitude out of him. I'd recommend doing so "literally". You declare that I'm not being objective, and then have the audacity to put words in my mouth to skew my viewpoint towards ridiculousness. Nice. Not once have I claimed that Slynt was the Watch's "finest brother", or that he was in any way a good person. That I haven't completely dismissed his usefulness does not mean that I am trying to alter his character. "The vicious Jon Snow"? You speak as if I've painted Jon as some distasteful monster, that I've accused him of something so horrendous and out of the ordinary, that no man should ever act like he does. How absurd. His actions are perfectly understandable, they are just wasteful, stupid, and emotionally charged. But you know what? I'd probably do the exact same thing as he did. If someone killed a person I love, and I held their life in my hands, they'd almost certainly die. That hardly makes it the right thing to do. If Jon was actually supposed to be judging Slynt for those actions, I'd have no issue. But they were supposed to be washed away by taking the Black. Jon couldn't see past Slynt's crimes, and as much as that is perfectly understandable, it's not just. It would take a rare person to be able to truly be impartial, and Jon is not that person. That's all. There's scarcely a good climate for Slynt's actions. I've never defended his actions, though. Never would. That is a logical conclusion, and one that not only I make, but Mormont made too. There's a point where desertion actually becomes desertion. Digging for buried treasure at Mole's Town is fine, midnight rides out from the Wall are fine, should friends return you, but actually leaving is not fine. Of course, a time comes when being lenient isn't possible, but it seems clear that Mormont always made the attempt. What Slynt did is not at all comparable to murdering another brother or "true" desertion. I do suppose that it could be comparable to Jon's attempted desertion. Borderline capital. Jon could've taken the position of his friends and "brought Slynt back", but he chose not to. I've never changed Slynt's character, nor have I made him out to be some model citizen. I've maintained that he could be made to obey, and that he'd be good enough to serve on the Wall. Not some paragon of dutifulness, just decent enough. I'd love to hear how. At Greyguard, away from Ser Alliser, there's little he could do. Perhaps he'd send ravens to Castle Black, addressed to Thorne? Well, Jon could read any mail (not just that which is addressed to Thorne, just in case) coming from the other castles first (which I'm sure he does, anyway, though it'd mostly be addressed to him). Problem solved. Slynt could bluster on about Jon to the men he's assigned. Well, give him men that can be trusted. Problem solved. There's nothing he could do. Please tell me how he could continue plotting. I'd love to hear it. Yes. They can work, though. Jaime's oaths to Catelyn, for example. He intends to keep them. Oaths secured at sword point are indeed fickle, no doubt, but oaths enforced by sword point are much more secure. If Slynt stepped out of line after being sent off to do whatever Jon would have him do, post-punishment, he'd know that one more misstep would be his demise. He obviously did not want to die. It stands to reason that he wouldn't provoke what he now knows is a dangerous bear, even if he thought to provoke it when he falsely thought it was a little squirrel. A threat of death is a powerful thing. No, he was Tully's bannerman, sworn to serve Lord Hoster and Riverrun. Robb was on his way to break the siege at Riverrun. Lord Walder "should have" jumped at the chance to do assist Robb in this. Instead, he forced a little extra from the situation. Your dismissal of this critique entirely misunderstands the difference between the ideal of the system and it's realities. Ideally, all men should just obey their leader, without question, as they ought to do. In reality, it doesn't quite work that way. The only difference between what Lord Walder did and what Slynt did is that Walder was actually in a superior position, whereas Slynt mistakenly believed he was. If Robb could've shown Lord Frey that he wasn't in a position to make demands, Walder would quickly have kowtowed to Robb's commands without needing further incentive. All Jon needed to do was show Slynt he was mistaken. I don't approve of what either one of these men did, by the way, that's just the reality of the system. I was referring to Longclaw, here. Jon only did what he should have done, when he protected his Lord Commander. Service is it's own reward, so why is good service rewarded? Incentive. I know that, ideally, Slynt should just obey, but that's not the reality. It simply isn't. If someone can get something more for doing their duty, they're going to want to. Persuasion, incentive, or punishment in order to have your subordinates obey. That's not unreasonable. Take Tywin's dealings with the Reyne's and Tarbecks, for instance. Lord Tytos should have smacked them back down, but didn't. By the time Tywin involved himself, they were so sure of themselves that they wouldn't kneel. Despite this, Ser Tywin tried repeatedly to smack them down, to allow them to surrender. Tywin warred against them, and time and again he tried to make them surrender. By the time he killed them all, he'd given them multiple chances and reasons (they were losing the war, for instance) to back down. Contrast this with Jon, who merely told Slynt to obey, and killed him when he wouldn't. Just because someone gets out of line, that doesn't mean that they need to die. Just smacked back down. Right. But you cannot be sacked from the Wall. If being sacked is the same as being executed, where are the other steps? Having you scourged, having you imprisoned, having your tongue out. Do you really think that your boss wouldn't, say, have you whipped (should she be allowed to do so) and then have you put back to work, instead of getting rid of you and needing to find and train another person? That your boss wouldn't think that your offense necessitated more punishment than being suspended or having your pay docked, but that something harsher, but not quite to being sacked, would be reasonable? There is no harsher response but to fire you, so that becomes the only choice. That is not so, for Jon. Yeah, fair enough. If a one-to-one analogy or metaphor would work, you wouldn't need to bother with the analogy or metaphor at all, considering agreeing with one would automatically have you agree with the other. Unless you're dealing with a hypocrite, I suppose. Yeah, as a last resort, not the first. Being annoying, being a cunt, or even being an annoying cunt are not traditionally punished with death. Heh. That would've been something, indeed! I wouldn't recommend it, though. Even among servile positions, that's just salting the wound. Wouldn't be a great decision, though certainly an amusing picture. I'd actually say so, too, but the fact is that the Greatjon had already decided he was to support Stark over Crown. If he'd obey, just not behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns, he's already put Robb's authority first. That's why I named it a crime. They're all treasonous criminals as far as the Crown is concerned, anyway. I can see both sides, but surely vows to the higher authority come first. Yeah, I've racked my brain, and I honestly can't come up with any way that Slynt could continue to conspire, after a punishment and going to Greyguard, in any way that matters. I've asked, in this monstrously large post, so hopefully I'll get an answer. Leading the garrison would be a bit hard, though, seeing as how nobody would be able to figure out his orders, if they're all illiterate. Could be good for a laugh, I suppose, seeing him trying to mime out some orders to his men, but ideally Greyguard would be run well. Nor did Slynt. That particular offense is on Allar Deem, not Janos Slynt. In that televised rubbish, it's Slynt who kills Barra, but not in the books. He orders it, but he's also ordered to order it, by either Cersei or Joffrey. So who's really at fault, here? Deem for going through with it, Slynt for ordering him to do so, or Cersei or Joffrey for wanting it done in the first place? All of them, I suppose, but surely Slynt's role is actually the least egregious, considering he's just a mouthpiece for Cersei or Joffrey in this situation. What's wrong with it? I suppose I have no issue with those men being punished, even executed, but executions traditionally aren't conducted by burning someone alive. That's a particularly cruel death. It was mutinous, perhaps, but there was no mutiny. Mutinous insubordination. Wow, that was one hell of a long post. Slightly more than half the page, at present. Damn.
  7. karaddin

    Cycling 2018 - TDF, puff the magic cyclist.

    I've long held that he really struggles with warmer weather and is only outstanding in the cold. Not sure if it still stands up but I dont think I've seen him do an outstanding ride when its hot.
  8. You didn't answer my question. Just challenging your thinking, which sometimes elicits more interesting conversation. No need for the eyeroll emoji.
  9. The smart Martin Wolf on the result of the “libertarian” overlords taking the place over. https://www.ft.com/content/3aea8668-88e2-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543 More on "libertarian" feudal overlord games. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/07/18/businesses-have-hijacked-capitalism-and-left-workers-behind/ It would seem some certain sorts of people are less enthusiastic about the "free market" when it comes to labor markets. ......................................................................................................................................... I usually don’t agree with much that is written in the National Review. But, there is much to agree here that the Euro as currently configured is very bad Juju. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/euro-zone-crisis-should-integrate-or-separate/ There is much to admire, I think, about Merkel. But, she is very wrong about this. Also interesting:
  10. Today
  11. Erik of Hazelfield

    SpaceX's Big Falcon Topic 2

    Seems to me they are trying to do something entirely different: affordable space tourism. Less exciting than orbital flight, yes, but they seem to be making good progress and that escape test was pretty cool. Does the SpaceX Dragon have that capability? To escape and survive a booster failure during ascent?
  12. Right I just didn't want to write out AT&T/Time Warner - just as I never liked writing out AOL/Time Warner. And I agree they will use HBO to launch their own service, that's what I was suggesting. And I agree Comcast likely wouldn't merge with Amazon, but Viacom might - or Amazon may go it alone. So..yeah, agree. Well, I don't know about internationally, but they still have to wait for licensing deals to run out - they own a lot of shit I watch on Netflix right now. Once the Fox deal goes through, they own even more. The trend of media concentration and conglomerates since the 96 Telecommunications Act is actually pretty simple to observe. And yes, Netflix is still a decidedly small fish compared to the big fish. Sure, didn't mean to suggest it wouldn't be on their terms.
  13. MostlyMoody

    The execution of Janos Slynt was personal and it was not justice.

    Let's stick with insubordination, because the word mutiny is describing what happens when Jon dies, so we would have to call what Bowen did an EXTREME SUPER MUTINY.
  14. DMC

    U.S. Politics- SCOTUS 2: The Election Strikes Back

    I think the GOP Senate has been protecting the Mueller investigation, but that doesn't mean they deserve any badge of nobility. In the article you quoted the author states he's as cynical as anyone about GOP MCs. Considering the piece is on the possibility they will actually vote for impeachment and conviction upon legitimate findings from Mueller, no, he most definitely is not. The cynical, and realistic, expectation is that the GOP will obfuscate and pivot no matter what Mueller finds - as they've done for all of Trump's actions they privately abhor. As long as Trump holds 90% approval among their constituency, that will continue to be the reality. LOL. If it gets shut down, yes, it'd just be reverted back to the FBI. What their response in actually pursuing the investigation any further depends on the political context of such an action. As in, if the Dems hold either chamber at the time, they may well pressure the DOJ to open another special counsel investigation, a la post-Saturday Night Massacre. And, of course, they'd be holding their own investigations as well. If the Dems don't take either chamber? Mueller could fight it in court for awhile, but it'd almost certainly be fucked. Oh, interesting hypothetical! So, assuming Scalia still dies at the same time, that's the big thing to consider. Have to admit though, I'm hard-pressed to think of any exogenous events in Obama's second term that I'm truly concerned about Romney presiding over. The big endogenous one is what happens to the ACA? Abolishing it was a big part of Romney's campaign, and it hadn't fully been rolled out by that time, so that's a big ol' issue. As to how Scalia's vacancy would have played out, one could argue if Romney wins in 2012, then the Dems hold/take back the Senate in 2014. This would also mean Reid never abolished the filibuster for lower court nominations in 2013. So would the Dems do what McConnell did and make the GOP wait for the 2016 election or would they cave? It's usually good money to bet the Democrats cave. Big thing politically though is how does this shape what's happening now and in 2020? Does Romney win reelection in 2016? He almost certainly would be facing Hillary, right? If Hillary ends up winning, we're in the same disadvantageous position for the Senate and combating gerrymandering as the 538 chatters point out. I think the backlash to Trump helps more in that regard than even if Romney wins reelection in 2016. So, overall, I'd have to say no - even though Obama's second term was uneventful, most are. I'll keep it. Also, to the bolded, I don't think this is ironic inasmuch as it was obvious that was gonna happen and sucks for the US. Thanks, Trump!
  15. Oh. I looked through your earlier posts in this thread, and I gotta say that's a long way to go for a joke, but kudos to you, ya got me.
  16. A True Kaniggit

    More Things Star Wars

    Move to Canto Bight and cheat at sabacc.
  17. Kandrax

    What if Walder Frey came early to Trident?

    He would be "I was here before, believe me" Lord Frey.
  18. Mosi Mynn

    More Things Star Wars

    I do get all that. And I do like the parallel with not killing Vader, but at least Luke was trying to do something there - and it worked! It seems that they not only let Ben run off to wreck everything they fought for, but they also stopped trying. Except for Leia (although she did seem to have given up on Ben). But Luke and Han just completely gave up. And when a bright young spark with the desire and power to take on Kylo Ren shows up Luke tries to turn her away too! I know he's seriously jaded by this point, but surely it's reckless in the extreme to unleash yet another uber-Force user on the Galaxy without trying to train them first. What did he think Rey was going to do with all this power and no guidance whatsoever?
  19. The Weirwoods Eyes

    Was Tywin Lannister a villain?

    Oh dear my apologies. I seem to have got my Tywin fanboys mixed up. I would go back and re write everything and address it all properly and individually but it's quarter to nine on a school day. The point is not if Tywin is justified in what he does but that his pride makes him do it.
  20. The Weirwoods Eyes

    Was Tywin Lannister a villain?

    This is a book. Not real life. The words on the paper are intentional. No body ever mentions Rhaegars desire for more sons up to ADWD and the epilogue by Kevan Lannister. A man who's brother was Aerys's Hand and close to the court. And who desperately wanted his daughter to be Queen. If the author decides to drop information about Rhaegar wanting more sons suddenly and from this source I'd bet it is important info. So many people treat these characters as though they are real and this all really happened rather than understanding that authors only write what they want to convey.
  21. The Weirwoods Eyes

    Was Tywin Lannister a villain?

    Non of that changes what Tywin was motivated by in doing something so thoroughly atrocious. I'm not ignoring the background. I think you are confused about what you are arguing about. Absolute Bull Shit! This is a book the information given to us is deliberate and meaningful. The indication is in the fact Tywin went ape shit. Now I'm not going to labour this point too much as it is only loosely supported and my point here is Tywin's emotional motivation more than the direct reason. You are of course talking shit about divorce etc. This is all happening in a situation where Rhaegar is planning on usurping his fathers crown and becoming at the least regent. We know he was holding out for a Targaryen husband and that this is why he kept her at court with him all those years and un betrothed. Besides all of which Tywin was so bent out of shape over Aerys and their own relationship and the relationship between Joanna & Aerys whatever actually happened there that his pride is undoubtedly the reason he went so OTT. I just happen to think that when an author subtlety places a little info drop in book 5 about the central mystery that its pertinent. Gregor was known to be a monster the author goes to lengths to let us know this. And Tywin knew what Lorch was too. We are specifically told about the well drowning incident to ensure that we know Lorch was a known psycho. The ultimate how being unimportant to Tywin does not negate that he knew what Lorch was when he selected who would breach the Targaryen nursery. Again you are arguing something other than the point. Your concern comes across not as to what Tywin's motivation in these actions would be but in trying to convince others that his crimes where excusable. And taht is not what we are discussing. Sigh, you are missing the point of the argument. It is not if most nobles would do similar but what his motivating emotion would be. And once again you are focused on excusing Tywin because you think the social structure justifies his actions. If any noble did the same the motivation would be wounded ego. The nobility functions on a system which is upheld in large by instilling a sense of superiority in the nobles as children. Their sense of entitlement is fostered early on and that entitlement leads to a prideful outlook. Tywin is given to us as an extreme example. Most Nobles would find a solution which did not involve sexual violence. Can you imagine Ned having a girl Bran married gang raped? Or making his son do such a thing? Doran Martell if Trystane did the same? Would Mace Tyrell do the same thing as Tywin? if a younger son made social faux pas? Because alienating ones son by committing atrocities against the person he loves is extreme behaviour. Look at how Aegon V deals with Duncan's marriage to Jenny of Old Stones. Tywin dials it up to 11 on more than one occasion and his motivating emotion is always his ego his prideful nature, and pride comes before a fall. This morality tale ends with him dying on the shitter, his pride and joy his son and heir is locked into the KG and has committed Incest and adultery. His daughter is a cuckolding incestuous ineffectual Queen & Mother who half the nation view as a whore. His second son is a dwarf who as far as he knows has murdered his own nephew the King. He could not have fallen further. Again, this is not a discussion about whether Tywin was justified, or had little choice, etc. It is about the motivation. His pride was the motivation he saw himself as above the Reyne's how dare they defy him! His pride motivated him to commit an act of atrocity. One which made him notorious.
  22. Faera

    Lizard Lions in the Neck

    Sure, there is magic in every kingdom but the people don't necessarily feel as "as part of it" as the crannogmen are to their land. Plus, as others have pointed out, the Neck does seem to be an oddity compared to the rest of the North or its neighbouring kingdoms, which might have something to do with the Neck's very creation having been through a very powerful magic. I pretty much agree with this.
  23. Black Crow

    Heresy 210 and the Babes in the Wood

    At this point I don't really have a dog in this race, but historically older bastards have always been seen as a threat to younger but legitimate siblings, so I think its not only possible but likely that GRRM is setting this up for Jon being older than Robb. Of course even if he was the same age or even slightly younger than Robb, now that Robb has dropped off his perch Jon is unquestionably older than Bran and Rickon. So why would the fact that Jon might be older than Robb matter when they were both above ground? If Jon is older then GRRM has set this up for a reason that may have nothing to do with the Winterfell Succession
  24. Black Crow

    Heresy 210 and the Babes in the Wood

    Thanks, that's pretty much how I remembered it and a very broad hint that something was going on
  25. Tucu

    forshadowing in first Bran chapter in aGoT

    My bet is on Gared being the agent that guided the she-wolf to cross the Wall via the Blackgate. He then sacrificed her for the Starks to find the puppies.
  26. TPTWP Timett

    Bloodraven, the red priestess, and the black bastsrd

    Mel thinks Bloodraven is her enemy so I seriously doubt he's communicating with her. I don't believe he's her father mainly because it adds nothing I don't remember any evidence either way.
  27. Stubby

    Book Jon vs. Show Jon

    [MOD] No discussion of show stuff in the book threads. Ever. [/MOD]
  1. Load more activity
×