Varyk

That doesn't sound like engaging plot delivery on part of the creator, and the gameplay wasn't my style at all, although I did like the character, creature and world design and am interested to see how this guy presents the lore.

As it was introduced to me, it's a guy who enjoyed playing but really enjoyed the main story and wen into a deep dive connecting every little scrap of lore to put together a full history.

I like that kind of stuff, so I'll give it a whirl

I hear the lore's really interesting and some guy linked me a YouTube channel full of elden ring lore so I might look into that.

But playing it, not so much.

Elden ring yawwwwn.

It's beautiful, and it seems like an interesting world, but learning exactly how to dodgerollattack for every enemy with deliberately delayed reflexes is not my kinda fun.

Did - Lived abroad. Cheap, fun, good healthcare/dental, great new foods

Acquired - electric toothbrush, immediate halt of dental decay

Exact same games for me, I started with dead cells and a hundred hours in was like well I guess I do like roguelites after all, Even though I had always thought I didn't.

And then I played Hades and was absolutely blown away, I love the stories inside and the action.

Boy, if you're considering hollow knight, you will have zero regrets, it's so fun and so eerie.

Soulslikes still make me yawn in comparison, dead souls 1, 2 and elden ring.

Maybe one day

Scavengers Reign, very creative sci-fi

That's a vaguely optimistic way to think about civil war, but I'm doubtful that

1. people perpetually scared enough to find owning guns in urban environments necessary are going to disagree with the fear-mongering rhetoric a president-king invokes.

2. owning guns translates into any sort of effective resistance

3. it was worth killing children and civilians for decades in the hopes of an eventual opportunity to fight something

4. civilians with their own guns won't be choosing their own targets

5. a sliver of power finally used to destroy a country is more important than the peaceful maintenance of representative democracy.

Mass executions being "barely in" the scope of presidential immunity means that even by your interpretation, mass executions are covered by Presidential immunity

Individual interpretation is the problem.

The president thinks to themselves "yea, that's barely in" and then it's official and covered.

Political suicide? Could be. Maybe not.

At the least, mass executions will be part of the official US presidential record. If they are carried out those people are dead and civil erupts, and if they aren't the president is immune and the person(s) who disobeyed him is subject to execution for treason.

Say the president signs an executive order explicitly stating that any act is considered a presidential duty during the day in which a president conducts a minimum of one official act.

Then literally everything is official no matter what.

Although that's unnecessary with how the supreme Court has defended official presidential immunity:

On page 30-31 of the SC decision, the supreme Court makes it known that because they have decided the US president is entitled to immunity and specifically cannot "be held criminally liable" for "certain official acts"(interpreted however broadly one would like), examining an unofficial act related to an official act, like legally examining whether or not dumps knew inciting a violent coup was illegal, "would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly- invite the jury to examine acts for which a president is immune from prosecution"

This means that any unofficial part of any official conduct, both interpreted however you see fit, cannot be legally scrutinized as scrutiny of an "unofficial act" could result in the legal scrutiny of an "official act" for which the supreme Court has decided there can be no legal scrutiny or prosecution anymore.

So, "hey, drowning that bag of puppies doesn't seem very official".

"Yea, too bad we can't do anything about it since he has to sign a bill into law this afternoon".

Yyyup.

Even when dumps was elected or roe was overturned, I was very disappointed but rationalized that voting could turn it around, even with a crappy voting system like the US has.

But granting absolute legal immunity to the most powerful branch of government is so broad and so reckless that I no longer clearly recognize any more safeguards on what can happen overnight to the US government.

Counterargument: The US dollar hasn't budged since the ruling, so for some reason nobody else is worried yet.

I don't really understand that.

Unofficial duties especially are not discreetly outlined or prohibited, so anything the US president does during an official act becomes an official act That cannot be legally scrutinized or prosecuted.

The president is commander-in-chief of the US military.

So ordering the US Navy to bomb Seattle is an official, legal act.

The president receives ambassadors. If they decide to shoot someone while waiting for an ambassador to arrive, or set a wildfire in a field of horses while on a "brainstorming jog" for that meeting, that shooting or arson is part of their official duty.

The State of the Union is an official act, so the president burning the flag while garroting an orphan on national television is now an official, legal act immune from legal liability.

Likely the same reason you believe replacing a successful incumbent with "generic Democrat" is politically advantageous: manipulated faith in popular conservative media.

Presidential polls are absurd propaganda at this point, and I guess you're referring to the same two clips fox news hasn't stopped running since the debate rather than to his obvious first term track record of "being old and still reliably and actively passing progressive legislation".

He already won against trump, he regularly passes progressives legislation, you vote for Biden and get Harris anyway if you want a backup.

I can't imagine how abandoning a proven candidate who beat trump before inspires political confidence if you haven't been successfully manipulated to trust in the reliability of conservative media instead of years of reality.