Fair. Sigh.

he’s not; it was a primary

The idea of George with the whiteboard cracked me up. A friend of mine and I keep saying we probably won’t read the books when (if) they finish, but will check out plot summaries on wikipedia to see what happens with fake Aegon, Lady Stoneheart, etc.

Here’s the thing, though - would anyone read the books if Sanderson finished them? He’s a hell of an author, for sure, but the whole reasoning behind hiring another author to finish the series is so you get closure. If the show delivers that, then is there a need to do so in the books? I mean, I get that it’s weird…

GRRM told the writers how it plays out, in broad strokes. Obviously, they took significant liberties even when there was direct source material, so I’d imagine the book ending and series ending will diverge in a lot of ways (while hitting the same broad notes). That assumes, of course, that GRRM ever finishes the…

You’re not wrong, but the pedant in me has to chime in that medieval English would be totally incomprehensible to us, so it’s not like using a British accent with modern English in a medieval setting is particularly “authentic.”

That’s at the beginning of the episode, though. The scenery is different during the battle. IIRC, at the beginning of the episode, they’re talking about acquiring grain; at the end, they’re trucking it into KL.

It’s not so much that the “muscle” doesn’t age well, it’s that people who have a decent amount of mass and stop working out don’t always stop eating the way they did when they were training and maintaining that mass. All that happens to the muscle mass itself is that it decreases.

Don Jr. is almost 40! This isn’t a fucking college essay. I love my parents and think they’re smart, capable people, but I don’t ask them to review my work product.

So, if people under investigation by the FBI make shitty presidential candidates, they make even shittier presidents, right?

as in, flaws don’t go away. Jesus, this is fucking tiring. we agree. can we stop debating now?

Yes, a person can absolutely develop a flaw. As I said, “a flaw can be inherent, without having always existed.” I agree with pretty much everything else you’ve said.

Not to wander too far down the pedantic/semantic path, but...

A flaw can be inherent, without having always existed (i.e. a permanent stain).

When speaking about people, flaws generally are inherent in the sense you are using it (i.e. people don’t change).

All that aside, the so-called “flaw” is extrinsic - i.e., it’s…

Yes, in the prestigious Welsh Premier League, right?

She wasn’t a perfect candidate - but, guess what? There’s no such thing. She wasn’t deeply flawed, she had flaws, like literally any candidate for anything ever. Absent 20 years of concentrated Republican attacks, she would have won. I can’t tell you how many people expressed to me they wouldn’t vote for her…

It’s a nice thought, but he’s a naked opportunist willing to abandon principles (if he ever had any) for standing and power. He may still hate Trump, but he wants to ride this train, not derail it.

She has been since January.

It’s not her flaw. Flaw implies that the problem is inherent.

“Deeply flawed” = the target of 20+ years of unfounded Republican hate-mongering.

Plenty of non-citizens pay taxes too.