There was an NYT piece in the past few days saying that because there are so many ideological branches of the "alt-right," that there isn't really a suitable label for them other than "racist" or maybe "white nationalist" and even then, the groups are racist in completely different ways. They aren't all necessarily…

In a political sense, perhaps, although it could be argued that as citizens of the American colonies, they could be rightly called "Americans." But in a geographical sense, very much no, as they were residents of North America, and more broadly the Americas, rather than Great Britain.

Also, it's probably never going to get a shout out here, but for history nerds, Revolutions is great. It's detailed enough that you get a pretty complete picture, and Mike Duncan is really thoughtful about providing context for all the decisions that people made, rather than just labelling people as good, bad, or…

So, what is your deal? Do you own a funeral home or something?

Do you ever wonder why fewer people die during major earthquakes in the US and Europe than in places like Pakistan and Haiti? It's because we have stricter building codes, so structures tend not to collapse as easily. My apartment may be more expensive than a structure slapped together from plywood and sheet metal,…

I'm sorry the existence of fire codes threatens the guise of philosophical consistency you've constructed around your shoddy excuse for an ideology, but maybe if you can't ensure that people won't burn to death in your building, you should't hold giant dance parties in it.

Yeah, if it weren't for a cumbersome bureaucracy, I'm sure that iceberg would have moved right out of the way.

Yeah, my bad. I just looked it up. Somehow I just had a picture of that bill in my head already, despite never seeing it before

*Trump names Justin Bieber as Secretary of Labor*

Mo' teeth, mo' problems.

Attention British vegans, Churchill has been on your money for years. Look at him. Do you honestly think that man didn't enjoy a nice Stilton?

I like the way you think.

It's a stupid strategy. It'll make it impossible to work with Democrats right from the get-go, with only a small Senate majority. And if Trump ends up being a one-termer, they will have shot themselves in the foot.

A. It's doubtful the GOP will use the nuclear option, and that wasn't up to Obama anyway, it was up to Harry Reid.

His senate majority from 2009-2011 was not filibuster-proof, so he couldn't just do whatever the hell he wanted on healthcare. I would be much happier with a single-payer system, but there are many more people covered now than were covered before. Also remember that at the same time as the ACA fight, Obama was…

There aren't enough shows set in Philly.

Now that I think about it, that historical reference point doesn't exactly bode well.

That's a ridiculous assertion. The ACA has some problems but not being denied care for a preexisting condition and being able to be covered by your parents plan until you are 26 are huge deals, and most of the problems with prices have been caused by the states that refused to be part of the federal exchange. Obama…

20th century, no, but some of the antebellum Congresses were similarly polarized disasters.