Last year, I did another trilogy playthrough as FemShep while I also happened to be playing Guild Wars 2 as a Sylvari woman. My double take when I realized was pretty funny. Jennifer Hale is supremely talented and she lends an air of gravitas without getting into comical over-acting. She just has a perfect voice for a badass!

What? I don't agree with AIPAC on a lot of things, but they're not the reason we don't have viability for an amendment to the constitution.

You're a lot more optimistic than I am. Look at the voting patterns of the right wing of our congress. I don't see any small gov advocates there who pay anything but lip service to the concept. They'll fall over themselves to not only protect Trump, but to be the loudest and most supportive of him.

Never gonna get an amendment in this country without a mass change in voting patterns. We would have to own congress for that.

You should probably look into Jill Stein before saying this. She would be above Trump but I'd take a lot of mainstream Dems over someone who seems compromised by other nations and regularly spouts conspiracy-level insanity. That fits both Trump and Stein.

I love this response though. Direct and to the point.

This is the second time I've seen right wing talking points associated with this game and it's so pathetic to try and use that to cover over your middling review scores. I mean, you run a business. If you're not going to self-reflect on why your product didn't do as well as you thought, not sure you're being honest with yourself on why your product failed. That same thinking would have been present in the design and development process, preventing their product from ever getting any better. One of those reasons companies even pay lip service to DEI: it genuinely brings fresh perspectives and refines your art and product.

Anyway, I even liked this game. It's honestly pretty fun and the zombie hordes are relatively unique for the genre. The main character isn't some right-wing asshole and even comes off as pretty empathetic and kind, if I remember correctly. It just came out at a time of open world oversaturation and played into almost every trope of the time. I think if it came out today, (and they managed to not show their ass online) it would do a lot better. As usual, the right-wing malding is weird on top of being gross and unnecessary.

It's newsweek so probably not, unfortunately. They reference a single Unilever focus group of Hispanic/Latino undecideds. Not sure that's enough to justify this title at all.

It's going to be a real spectacle watching what happens to these agencies. This is going to open the floodgates for SCOTUS cases. They're gonna be mighty busy dismantling it all next year.

Everyone here wants ranked choice. It's just not simple to pass. I do highly recommend that those who are able should push for a ballot initiative in their state and/or campaign for the issue. Do you have any links or resources for those who might be looking to get engaged further in those state-level efforts?

This is so far beyond salmon fishing. This is going to weaken every executive agency we have severely. Congress is broken and they're never going to give piecemeal explicit authority to these agencies for comprehensive work. The EPA, the FTC, the FCC, the SEC, the ATF. They're all damaged and weakened by today's ruling and thus so is our environment, our economy, our utilities, and our regulations. This was the conservative wet dream ruling above almost any other this session. This was the Dobbs-style meat thrown to the educated, more lawful evil Republicans.

Please vote, so we can nominate justices to the Supreme Court. Please help us add another Sotomayor or Jackson instead of an Alito, Thomas, or at this rate, Cannon. Not feeling hopeful right now, but I have to ask.

All good, friend. I just think this is possible for us to defeat, even at the ballot box. The American people are powerful when they decide to wield their votes for the actual, true betterment of the country and our democracy. I really think we can do this, together.

Right, which was in the early 1800s. For better or worse, it's been a major component of their role for 90% of the nation's history. You're right though, I erred in using "entire point".

They withheld the vote on obama’s nominee in order to get a Republican to install them.

Yup, because they had control of the Senate. They were voted in. I'm not denying that Republicans are immoral, unethical scumbags with the intent to power game the system, but we have no tools to fix that in our current system other than overwhelming it. It only gets worse the longer we wait.

There really aren't a lot of other options for the citizenry. You can LARP at revolution or whatever, but I'm not volunteering first and I don't see a lot of others doing so either. I, and a lot of other vulnerable people, are not going to come out on top, so I'll pass on that solution.

Fact of the matter is, we could have elected Hillary in 2016. Sure, there was Republican meddling and Comey and yada yada, but it was fully within our abilities and we failed. The Supreme Court would look entirely different right now and we would still have medical rights. We did flip the senate, so it was fully in play before and then Mitch would not have been able to block the Garland appointment. Those are concrete outcomes from something that was fully possible for us to prevent. So I'm just not comfortable writing off voting as worthless at this stage, even with the acknowledged difficulties, gerrymandering, etc.

If they already had ranked choice, I doubt this would be on the ballot.

No worries! I'm full of rage on all this nonsense lately too and I've been in that same mode. I'm happy to join with you in November and in the meantime to start to fix this nonsense!

Of course there's a reason? Legislation was passed (the real problem here) and the entire point of the court is to evaluate legislation against our constitution. I agree with every single statement in your last paragraph, but you have to point the blame at the correct place. SCOTUS taking this up is completely legitimate and falls entirely within their role in our government.

The state legislators are infringing on private citizens and their medical care. That's the crime here. Even then, it's important to understand that nothing is off limits to legislators. Even our core rights can be changed by a supermajority in the national congress. Power decides what rights get protected in a society. That's been the recurrent tale of history for all time. We are beyond fortunate to have a sliver of that power and we are failing to use it to stomp these legislators into the dust. That's the crime here, not SCOTUS taking up a case that falls entirely under its jurisdiction and mandate.

We really need an amendment or two around medical care. However, the same problem preventing that is what is causing the need in the first place: Republicans in national and state legislatures. The judiciary sucks right now, but it's really not their job to do anything but evaluate whether this is constitutional and it likely is (in a post-Dobbs world). I'd love to see the right to privacy ruling come back, but that's not happening. All of those assumptions can be changed with dedicated, long-term strategic voting and a bit of luck with justice health. Please vote.

Edit: Somebody replied and I have you blocked. Just don't want you to have to wait for a response. Lemmy should really just hide my comments from you so we don't run into this issue, but such is life.

The Bible takes place almost entirely in the middle east and I would guess this guy's mental reel of it looks like an Imagine Dragons concert.

All they have to do is redefine "establishment". That's child's play for this court.

Thank you!