Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About illrede

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

894 profile views
  1. The Heroes is my personal favorite for the series.
  2. It becomes a lot different when they're gentry. Ardee had a reputation as social embarrassment, but she meets the minimum standard for an issue of her body to core a rebellion, or rather for Terez or her father taking steps to ensure that it can't, ever.
  3. illrede

    U.S. politics. thread

    Gorsuch and Sotomayor seem to be forming a predictable 6th Amendment axis. That's interesting.
  4. illrede

    US Politics: Four Days and Counting

    Flipping the House, by whatever margin, is indistinguishable from a landslide in most respects.
  5. *Shrug* Events. It was as good a plan as there was, he needed a plenipotentiary the point of contact and the new arrangement would have to be accepted by his son to be workable anyway. Going back, Doran was unwilling to disinherit Arianne and that is on him. His judgement that she could not be brought into the family plot was empirically vindicated. Arianne's coup attempt against her father would have, in her assessment of the situation, been met with lethal consequences if it failed, and it failed for the reasons Doran gave for not bringing her into the family plot (she couldn't keep her mouth shut with friends that couldn't keep their own mouths shut around casual acquaintances). That said, post-Crows Arianne seems to not have this fault and there doesn't appear to be a reason not to benefit from the silver lining of a painful education.
  6. illrede

    U.S. Politics: For Whom the Bell Polls

    Remember the 1940 congressional elections. Things can turn around fast, even late, if you can identify a problem and move on it.
  7. illrede

    Tolkien 3.0

    I thought Maedhros was regarded in posterity, in-universe, as an upstanding guy constrained, driven, and ruined by the Oath and the Doom. In fan circles he seems to be thought well of.
  8. The great medieval banks all tended to go down after one thing, no matter how powerful- a king got used to not paying his debts, then they tolerated an era of confiscations or inappropriate "loans" as a cost of doing business. After that started, the only solace is that unlike the jews they stood a good chance of surviving the experience, even if reduced to penury. The Iron Bank is right to take this as an existential threat.
  9. illrede

    US Politics: Red Whine Hangover

    I'm still proud of that neat trick I did where I wrote something about stepping back and looking at something from a perspective being ignored so inanely that anybody willing to figure out what I was saying wasn't going to immediately explode in incoherent rage. I thought it was a risk that I would be running if I was more forthright. As later events, threads, and posters showed, it was worth doing. But either you can't understand the concern that a low-population state with a commodities-orientated economy can be crushed without much notice by the legislative preferences of states with different economies and much larger populations. Or know some ways that concern has shaped American politics post WWII. Or you don't get a "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" reference.
  10. illrede

    US Politics: Red Whine Hangover

    The obvious example that has been true for "modern" times (as in 1950s+) is that "commodities" orientated "small" states are pretty much in "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" territory when it comes to "big" state legislative priorities. That crosses class (and party) boundaries, it's a regional thing.
  11. illrede

    US Politics: Red, Red Whine

    Well as previously stated it wasn't for everybody.
  12. illrede

    US Politics: Red, Red Whine

    I was trying to walk a line of thought through a thread populated with posters I'm convinced would rage-out the moment they encountered the wrong proper noun. I think I pulled it off which makes it worth having done, but I'll take the criticism.
  13. illrede

    US Politics: Red, Red Whine

    Then you've missed the point. Concise doesn't aid comprehension here.
  14. illrede

    US Politics: Red, Red Whine

    Look at it this way. In the current administration's 2nd Supreme Court Nomination (notably from a widely available and closed population list- high court oppo for this political moment has been given a rare handicap), after some excitement in speculation, they go with the "safe" pick. Which is to say someone not seen as one to revisit a certain decision unprompted (the key distinguishment from the speculated alternative that people perceived), a former clerk of the Judge being replaced, broad spectrum recommendation on account being very much the "establishments" representative. Some intra-establishment animosity in the past but that had been perceived as having been worked out with a brief career progression delay; good broad patronage and likewise a wide patron of others. Safe. (Gutless, if you're being uncharitable and inclined that way.) Events occur that it is perceivable that if one assumes this was someone's plan to disrupt the nomination process at a specific moment using an item kept at hand, obtain a prompt withdrawal when a second nomination process would be mechanically impossible under this Legislature and the current administration's 2nd Supreme Court Nomination can be neutralized utilizing a further expansion of some new mutually observed legislative norms should events allow.... it's believable, if you assume some out of the ordinary optimism to go with the out of the ordinary cutthroat political behavior. Inordinate optimism in three related areas (which I personally believe haven't been born out). The disrupting item has to obtain a conventional standard of importance and proof (either already possess it, or acquire it in the truncated timeframe allowed- as would in at least some way have to be a blind draw, optimistic to rely on). Ones opponents have to in sufficient degree cooperate with where these conventional standards are (historically speaking, they've been appalling low as well appallingly high. If I had to take a guess about somebody else's guess, I'd say an expectation to err towards "low" at the moment. This is still unreasonably optimistic.). There must not be a widening, extended, and unresolved conflict over these (which would be unwarranted optimism- you don't pick the size and duration of a fight unilaterally). That's gone about as badly as it could while still being implemented, but isn't contradicted as an assumption. It's much more attractive to see this as a series of events (surrounding another event) with a genesis in and carried on with error and animosity (and it's never a mistake to hold out for that), But I recommend making allowances for people that don't. (I know this is harder to follow than it needs to be but I see that as meaning anyone who bothers to try to understand what I am saying will also bother to understand what I am saying)
  15. illrede

    US Politics: Judge Dread

    Their standing committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously endorse his qualifications.