The problem I have with saying the Great Council set an iron precedent is that the beneficiary, Viserys I, didn’t think it did! He fully intended for his daughter to become queen after him, and was willing to get the lords of the realm to swear an oath to that effect. I agree that there’s definitely a presumptive…

I am 100% certain I am opening a giant can of worms here, but -

There’s not really a narratively satisfying death we can give Littlefinger at this point other than to have him beat at his own game by two little girls (which is arguably still unsatisfying, but still more dramatic than someone just stabbing his ass, or for him to die at the hand of an anonymous wight).

This means that Aerys -> Rhaegar -> Jon. Dany only THINKS she’s the lawful successor because she believes there are no other siblings/nephews around. On a strictly legal basis, the Targ claim rests with Jon.

At the moment Aerys died, Viserys was his heir, and at the moment Viserys died, Dany could arguably have become his heir instead of Jon (pretending they knew of him) - this is what a previous civil war was fought over, basically.

Except you are arguing two different things. Loyalty to a State did not preclude the admission that the Union was a contract that could be exited from at will. Hence why many millions of Northerners fought and bled and died to keep the Union intact.

This was a radical interpretation of our Constitution at the time.

I think there’s room for nuance there. When you have a whole town of people lose a bunch of young men in war - their sons, brothers, husbands... I can see how that town would have wanted to remember those that they lost.

I say this as a life long Union man, who worships at the foot of William Sherman, but the legal consensus of the 1860+

Of course they are. People also signed mortgages without understanding that there is a balloon payment at the end.

This, 100%. I think from a good governance standpoint, there is no question that the city shouldn’t be doing a thing. But it seems equally obvious to me that the taxpayers deserve a day in where their tax dollars go. If they want to spend their dollars on Dan Gilbert... I guess that’s there prerogative.

Because when people like the Koch brothers invest $889 million in politics, it’s not to help the lower and middle class. It’s to save them money.

Well, the counterpoint is interesting. If someone got fired for attending a BLM rally, the liberal community would blow its collective top.

If you can’t see how rich people use their wealth to fleece the poor and middle class, I don’t know what to tell you.

If you can’t see how rich people use their wealth to fleece the poor and middle class, I don’t know what to tell you.

Whose lives did the Koch brothers ruin? Or Jeffrey Loria? And as for Bernie Madoff, why no blame on the victims there? They put money into a market and expected returns, but the nature of that game is that you are risking something. We fetishize the little guy, protect them from harm, but if you want to invest…

See, I can do the same exact thing with a google search. but you won’t recognize the names, because they aren’t rich and in the news, hence.... CONFIRMATION BIAS!

Whatever cute descriptor you can use to describe her, it all boils down to one thing: She’s fat, and that’s OK.

Except... you named one family, which happens to be a family noted for being, shall we say, stingy. I can find an article about some jackass less wealthy person in a heartbeat if I try.

This is the dumbest post. People are people. The rich aren’t any better or any worse, you just hear about it more.