avclub-77fe6e828924d44e593f7d864d1e6245--disqus
the voice of raisins
avclub-77fe6e828924d44e593f7d864d1e6245--disqus

If The AV Club had an HR department, we would all be out of work.

seconded!

"Over 20 Evil Attractions Include: Roaming Demons"

I understand that it is a state's law, but why is sexual harassment a tort rather than a crime?

I would prefer not to.

For a guy who claims to want to cede powers to the states, this is a really bizarre argument. Trump is not only claiming that federal law supersedes state law (which is what the supremacy clause actually means), but that his personal preference to not have to deal with a court case about crimes he allegedly committed

What this argument presupposes is that providing immunity to a president, the chief executive of the nation's laws, who has committed a crime is less detrimental to the country than having that president deal with a court case while performing his duties. That is patently absurd.

I would like to see a mailman try that argument.

Nailed it

Herzog emoji pack:
lonely penguin
ermine trap
Siberian woodsman
cold scientist
spooky house
modem
indigenous South Americans pushing large boat
haboob
large rock
angry grizzly

I mean, it's admittedly a very, very low bar.

He's actually quite intelligent for a man who has a cheap overcooked steak where his brain should be.

PINEAPPLE

Do any of their names rhyme with Blerkel?

Woooo! Civil conversations!

Yeah, there are definitely a lot of problems with how the party is attempting to reassess itself, both from progressive and centrist perspectives. I don't think there is a danger of the Democrats adopting Trump-style populism, but there is a danger of narrowing the ideological range of the party such that it doesn't

At this point the conflicts in the democratic party are more perceived than actually there, and honestly the preferred policies of individuals conflict with each other sometimes. But if we talk about Democratic policies primarily in the context of how they benefit marginalized groups, a lot of poor white people are

I agree with you there, but I don't think it's an either/or situation. I think if the Democrats reframe their policies regarding the protection of marginalized groups as parts of their broader policies, rather than as separate policy domains, they can fight for the rights of these groups while minimizing the

People's interests conflict, so voting with your interests in one realm of policy may mean voting against your interest in another realm of policy. That "voting against their own interest" line is self-defeating and paints a deceptively flat picture of much of the country.

I think the Clinton's problem in the last election was largely one of "bandwidth", though. You have to assume that it's only possible to communicate so many policies at once without them bumping into each other and alienating people you need to win over. Clinton's message was, more or less, talking to different