|
farraday posted:I believe legally you don't have the right to refuse a pardon, so this is basically him asking for a pardon. you do have a right to refuse a pardon, there's even a specific supreme court case on point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
boner confessor posted:i mean i guess there's some sort of special exceptional property of the waters of the Atlantic which makes states that touch them more liberal north of a certain line a guess or it could be a flawed, arbitrary grouping that goons want to defend to the death for some reason because it's easier than admitting they're wrong the exceptional property of the waters of the atlantic are that they were easily reachable from england so the east coast forms a political unit of "the thirteen original colonies"
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:its a reference to a group of states that happens to mostly overlap with a geographical feature so it gets tagged by that geographic feature even though it's not ~precisely accurate~ yeah i get that but mostly i was lolling at the evident factual inaccuracy of that dude's post but really now it's just funny as goons try to bicker at me what east coast are (excluding more than half the states on the eastern side of the us that actually have oceanic coastline) it's part of this thread's continual, amusing struggle with flexible definitions of american geography evilweasel posted:the exceptional property of the waters of the atlantic are that they were easily reachable from england so the east coast forms a political unit of "the thirteen original colonies" for the purposes of this argument not including between 3-5 of those states, depending
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you do have a right to refuse a pardon, there's even a specific supreme court case on point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States Yep bad memory on my part.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Rigel posted:This is a very good article Meh. My response to the guy who wrote the manifesto would simply be this: "tolerance and diversity" don't mean "bend over backwards for anyone and accept their opinions and proposals regardless of how hateful, racist and sexist they are." No one has to tolerate your intolerance. This doesn't make them intolerant. That's really it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:it's part of this thread's continual, amusing struggle with flexible definitions of american geography The mountain derail from a million pages ago was stupid and yeah, poor use of geographical terms In this instance, "coastal" was being referred to in a political way not a geographical way so no misuse here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:The mountain derail from a million pages ago was stupid and yeah, poor use of geographical terms  dude didn't specify which coasts, just because the gulf coast is often forgotten as a political division doesn't mean it isn't significant. more liberal elitism at work
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:
You literally just explained here why when someone colloquially refers to the "coastal states" they're not referring to the Gulf Coast. If you're the only one using a colloquialism a certain way, you're using it wrong. Stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Meh. My response to the guy who wrote the manifesto would simply be this: "tolerance and diversity" don't mean "bend over backwards for anyone and accept their opinions and proposals regardless of how hateful, racist and sexist they are." And, of course, "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from consequences for your [the memo writer's] bigoted nonsense."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/896034132207206401
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
end the tyranny of fake mountains today
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
the same people who refuse to acknowledge the texas coastline probably also doubt that tacos are sandwiches
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:the same people who refuse to acknowledge the texas coastline probably also doubt that tacos are sandwiches Why did you do this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
eyebeem posted:Why did you do this? Because some people have never eaten a torta.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
In a bit of beautiful irony The Anti-Refugee Ship Run By Far-Right YouTubers Got Into Trouble And Was Helped By A Refugee Rescue Boat https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/franciswhittaker/the-anti-refugee-ship-run-by-far-right-youtubers-got-into
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:This is probably true when it's the US attacking Russia or vice versa or either of those two attacking a country that isn't in hideous standing with the international community. But while nuclear war with North Korea would be horrific, I very much doubt that anyone is going to risk apocalypse to go to bat for Kim Jong Un. That's oddly reassuring. Not that the deaths of millions of Koreans and Chinese is an acceptable thing either, but it's a lower level of threat than the destruction of world-wide society in less than an hour. Thanks D&D for helping me walk back off the ledge a little bit. That's not often something that I think gets said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Isn't the issue that any nuclear exchange could easily get all the other players to attack with nuclear weapons as well? I mean, that's what the gallows humor is about here, so I'd think at least some people see it as possible. A radioactive Korea with fallout blowing over the Pacific isn't a direct threat to the survival of Moscow or Beijing. Launching nuclear weapons at the United States is. Russia and China aren't going to launch a nuclear attack against us to punish us, because that would result in their own destruction as well. If North Korea launched nukes and we retaliated with nukes the command and control centers in Russia and China would obviously be glued to their monitors, but everyone involved would be working really loving hard to prove the missiles were going to hit Korea and not their own country. There's a very tiny chance that MAD *might* not apply to North Korea, but it sure as poo poo still applies to everyone else if a limited nuclear exchange happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Do people not from the south not call it the gulf coast or the third coast?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:That's oddly reassuring. Not that the deaths of millions of Koreans and Chinese is an acceptable thing either, but it's a lower level of threat than the destruction of world-wide society in less than an hour. The biggest reason why NK has lasted this long is because China, Russia, and SK don't want to deal with an entire country of starving, uneducated, brainwashed refugees, so there isn't a big chance of them standing up for them. It will be okay, although if you are coming here for mental help you are probably hosed already
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Why is this a story. They're not saying he's been offered a pardon, just that he would (obviously) accept one Because he keeps asking for one and is getting flustered that Trump isn't giving him one. It's funny
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
I've got my eclipse glasses though so I'll be fine if I stare into the nuclear fireball (until I'm vaporized leaving nothing but a shadow on the wall) 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
TBH I'm still less concerned about Trump striking first than I am about his rhetoric causing NK to make a miscalculation and strike first themselves because they're expecting an attack. I suspect Trump's threats are about as real as most of his threats to sue people or his threat to prosecute Hillary - hot air designed to make himself feel good and project something he perceives as strength, but never to be followed with actual substantive action because actual substantive action carries a risk of blowback.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Do people not from the south not call it the gulf coast or the third coast? if we refer to it at all (which we rarely do unless there is a hurricane about to hit it) we call it the gulf coast, otherwise we just consider it more generally part of the deep south
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Do people not from the south not call it the gulf coast or the third coast? Pretty much everyone calls it the Gulf Coast, which makes sense and is useful for distinguishing it from the ocean coasts, which are different in the political context. Boner Confessor is stupid and should stop posting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Do people not from the south not call it the gulf coast or the third coast? i've heard either gulf of mexico or the gulf coast here in canada jr.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
As horrible as it is would anyone in the US really care if they nuked Guam
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Spiritus Nox posted:TBH I'm still less concerned about Trump striking first than I am about his rhetoric causing NK to make a miscalculation and strike first themselves because they're expecting an attack. I suspect Trump's threats are about as real as most of his threats to sue people or his threat to prosecute Hillary - hot air designed to make himself feel good and project something he perceives as strength, but never to be followed with actual substantive action because actual substantive action carries a risk of blowback. yeah this is probably the most likely way things go to hell. trump makes north korea think a preemptive attack is coming, they try to pre-empt the preemptive attack, and a massive conventional war breaks out i have my doubts that they would use their nuclear weapons even in those circumstances though: the nuclear weapons are a trump card to prevent the war from getting out of hand and suing for peace, while using them means there is no end to the war that doesn't involve every single person in north korean leadership dead. the concern there though is their lack of second-strike capability: they may believe that they need to use them or lose them. (second strike capability means that you have the ability to launch your nuclear weapons even if you are hit first. it makes everything more stable because it means you are less concerned about someone trying to wipe out your arsenal with a suprise attack, meaning you don't need your stuff on as much of a hair trigger. second strike capibility is usually one or more of: (a) nuclear missile submarines that are good enough to evade detection until they launch; (b) missile silos hardened to resist a direct hit and (c) portable icbms that can't be easily found before they launch)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:As horrible as it is would anyone in the US really care if they nuked Guam Yes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:In a bit of beautiful irony They should have let those fuckers starve to death on their loving boat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Do people not from the south not call it the gulf coast or the third coast? for political reasons the gulf coast snakes around and takes up half the atlantic coast as well at least until southern virgina no it doesn't make any sense, which is why it's beloved itt
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
I'm going to ask something, and hopefully it doesn't come off as too crazy. if the korean penisula is reduced to a smouldering crater, how will this affect development of popular video games Overwatch and PUBG?? Every time I think about the existential threat of this it constantly fills me with a kind of dread and depression that makes it impossible to really go through the day and act like anything you do even matters in the slightest
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
If NK struck first even with a normal conventional weapon then the US would be justified in retaliation . In that case I don't think Russia or China would become involved. However, if we struck first with a nuclear weapon then yeah I think China and Russia would respond and we'd all die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
farraday posted:Yes? While that was mostly flippant, I would say that the majority of the country didn't know it was even a part of us until they started being under threat. I do honestly wonder the response versus if they nuked, say, LA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:As horrible as it is would anyone in the US really care if they nuked Guam Uh, yes? Guam is a US territory. The US literally owns the island and the people of Guam are legally American citizens. Nuking Guam with a missile should be treated as a direct attack on US soil and US persons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Why is this a story. They're not saying he's been offered a pardon, just that he would (obviously) accept one My best guess is that Joe reached out to the media so that word would get to Trump without Joe technically asking for one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:As horrible as it is would anyone in the US really care if they nuked Guam Support are troops
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:While that was mostly flippant, I would say that the majority of the country didn't know it was even a part of us until they started being under threat. I do honestly wonder the response versus if they nuked, say, LA. different public reaction, but the response to someone lobbing a nuclear weapon isn't going to wait on public reaction
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
our precious strategic guamamole reserves
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:As horrible as it is would anyone in the US really care if they nuked Guam pearl harbor was a relatively obscure territory in the atlantic, not even a state, and america lost its mind when it was attacked
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
Has North Korea even threatened to use nuclear weapons recently? The threat of a missile strike in the waters near Guam doesn't automatically mean nuclear weapons. Thus far it is mainly the US threatening the use of nuclear weapons, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:16
|
|