[thought better of it]

To me it read's fairly descriptive. Victoria's white, privileged, and presumably occasionally troubled, otherwise there wouldn't be much fodder for drama. How is it political to state facts? Are you arguing that the Queen of England is not privileged?

But see, the interesting thing is that as much as she might want to submit to everyone, she usually can't submit to everyone at the same time. Submitting to tradition for instance often means telling off her husband. At one point she even has to tell off Churchill. Liz is a people pleaser thrust into a position where…

Also watched it with my mum. Saved me quite a few trips to Wikipedia. It's one of mum's hobbyhorses. (She teaches high school law, civics and occasionally history, and she has a bit of a fascination with royals). She's a pretty good story teller too, and I've always loved listening to her recounting the drama of these…

I quit even shows I still rather like if I'm not quite feeling them right now. Life's too short and there's more top-shelf-quality around than I could ever hope to engage with anyway. If I absolutely need to know how certain storylines ended, I can always read the wikepdia-episode summaries.

Maybe. But things that are normalized, don't have to remain normalized. Talking may do little, but not talking does less.

People usually do, if you read below the fold/actually click on the article/ask for an elaboration etc. It's still useful to have shorthands for summaries/headlines .

I'm on record as a Marnie-apologist, but no. When she's on top for a hot second, Marnie can outdo them all in smugness, and has therefore always had her claim to the title of "the worst".

It's also the whole point of the apple story for me. Always found that hard to argue with.

I wouldn't voluntarily watch either, but if you put a gun to my head and made me choose, it'd be Warcraft in a hearbeat.

The point of a taunt, even a childish one, is that it's supposed to reflect badly on the person insulted, not on the person trying to be insulting.

I'll take barely. But it is a sobering thought that Hofer actually got a slightly higher percentage of votes than Trump. We are just lucky that we don't have an electoral college.

Don't shut up. Things are not normal. Never let them believe this is normal now.

I have to hide my true feelings about Coelho a lot too, because I know some lovely people who like that stuff or at least like it well enough to be potentially disturbed by the depth and passion of my disdain.

So Hillary _selected_ Trump as her opponent. Okay…..

Who's bewildered? As I said, I'm certainly not. Reactance is a well-researched phenomenon. But when people absolutely insist on cutting off their noses to spite their faces, there's little you can do about it.

Tell us something new. Most people here probably already agree that the only possible reason to vote for Trump could be childish spite.

I wrote my comment in reply to an article about an ostensibly progressive celebrity flattering Trump at the expense of Clinton.

Keeping people who would be threatened by Trump safe is an objective I obviously value more highly than you do, but I actually agree that even the most noble end doesn't justify _all_ means.

If poverty is your only issue, maybe I could see how you might feel like risking a Trump presidency is a totally fair price to pay for that warming glow of righteousness you'll get from voting third party. (With some difficulty, honestly; at least Hilary won't try to roll back Obamacare. But fair enough, she's a…