You can't actually be serious.

You realize that right now you're pretty much defending th guys that attacked the magazine, right? Maybe you should really rethink how much weight you're giving these offenses.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm damned sure that it doesn't involve anything to do with the movie business. Everyone here who works anywhere near actors is laughing at you, so is really hope you're joking about all this.

So just exactly how many burdens do we have to put on this film in order to achieve this casting? At the moment we're up to:
-cast a unknown actor with no proven box office value
-hide the most expressive part of their face
-find (or design and build) an incredibly expensive remote control car
-manually place the actors…

Casting more blind actors is fine, but there is an obvious limitation here- how many blind ROLES are there, really? A non-blind actor can play blind roles, but the reverse probably isn't true. So you're talking about a very limited amount of opportunity to "rise through the ranks." And even those handful of actors…

And it baffles me that so many people did not grasp that when this story first broke. The original article is full of people who don't see anything wrong with CNNs handling of this.

If you've worked much with Final Cut or Premiere (actually, it was probably After Effects), it's maybe ten minutes. A lot of that tracking is done through facial recognition and automation. It's probably a half a dozen tracking points and that's it.

Agreed. Ambiguous is fine, but there needs to be a purpose behind it, and I still can't figure out what it is in these cases. It's just confusing.

I agree. I mean, if I could put that vague description of what the message should be into better words, I'd be doing that instead of commenting here.

They most certainly have. But context is the key here: after having voted Dem for decades despite getting pretty handily ignored by the party, the Rust Belt voters jumped ship. Probably more or less regardless of who the GOP ran, though Trumps brand of base populism probably helped his cause.

" They're refusing to rule out reporting on any newsworthy public statements he chooses to make in the future." IF ITS PUBLIC STATEMENTS THEY DON'T APPROVE OF. And publicly making that condition known.

Man, you guys are a mean bunch of girls.

I think the point is that you need to stop talking about Trump and start talking about the people he's affecting.

Its not that polling is unreliable, its that its not infallible, and shouldn't be treated as such. Polls, especially the ones closer to the election, showed the race was pretty tight.

My take on why she lost, for the tiny amount that's worth, starting with the least impactful:

Except that all the people in the rural communities benefit from the balance offered by the EC. So it is literally an issue that only sways people already sold on Democrats.

I think its less about talking stupid but talking simpler and in more emotional terms. Don't go on a 5000 word explanation of the health-care industry. Just say "Medicare for all."

Counterpoint: no, they really don't. They spent 20 years making promises they wouldn't keep— promises like they were going to support unions. Its not a coincidence that the Rust Belt was Trump's road to victory.

Well, it's also because his persona was based around being a family entertainer. Trump's persona is based on being a powerful douchebag— as the interview says, the guy "who gets away with it." Everything he gets away with reinforces that brand.

Its the difference between principle and message. The "Left" stands for a lot of things, but those principles get lost in how it represents those things and by infighting.