hot take: kelly was right to view san junipero as a fundamentally meaningless place and the end to this episode is incredibly depressing

seems like it would have been incredibly easy for him to claim that the whole thing was a frame job by the hackers

i didn't really buy that he was going to go to jail if he got caught after robbing the bank - he clearly has an extortion defense. it came across as more of a morality question than a risk/reward one, in my mind.

honestly? it's the constitution. the moment you start your national character to a set of laws, you're fucked.

i worry that any legal action taken against him will end up riling up his supporters more, rather than prove them the error of their ways - if he wins and gets impeached, it'll be proof the election was rigged, and if he loses it'll be spun into him being "punished" by the "elites".

at least Jessica Jones made some effort to pretend like Kilgrave was going out of his way to go under the radar - Luke Cage seems to make national news multiple times across the season

out of curiousity: do they ever mention any of the stuff happening in the netflix series? or are ABC/Netflix as demarcated as TV and Movies?

i mean, she's a woman with mental health issues who lives in poverty. if you think the system was built for her, that's your prerogative, though.

are these lobbyists slipping those pieces of legislation to her while she goes on speaking tours? im not saying that people like HRC aren't swayed by special interests, im saying that speaking tours aren't the way they get swayed. it's not a mechanism that makes any sense. i mean, who gives a shit about fleeting…

his supporters don't necessarily understand that, though.

in all honesty, i'm kinda vague on the problem with "money for access". "access" in and of itself isn't the problem.

there's a washington post article linked somewhere up thread featuring an interview w/ a [i think literally just released from a mental hospital] clearly unstable trump supporter

am i arguing that claire slept with them, or am i saying that it's plausible that she'd pursue both romantically?

the first half and second half of this show were really night and day, huh

he's part of a democratic president's cabinet, he nods along approvingly to "the 1% are destroying our economy" in the pilot, he refuses to take any military action in response to an attack that has crippled the US govt unless he's "100% sure" the info is right, and he defends the policy he developed as housing…

i think there's a bit of a paradox in there for him. because you're right: unless he can convince CBS to take a hit in the ratings as an act of charity to the american public, there probably isn't any way for him to keep producing that kind of material and compete with the jimmy fallons of this world.

it actually surprises me a little bit that they've explicitly made kirkman a democrat/that the show is so explicitly liberal - especially considering the show:

he's a member of cabinet. the other lady is just some congressperson.

i was really enjoying his Late Show in the early days. it seemed almost defiantly intelligent, and humane - the spike jonze alternate opening and the joe biden interview stick out to me as highlights, and he seemed really intent on making sure there were a regular parade of scientists and authors and other public…

i can accept that to a certain degree. i just don't know if there necessarily are any "nobodies" in cabinet.