no, and I didn' say trump was a nazi. I said is entourage has tangible ties to them. Trump told the NYT what he thought they wanted to hear. That's kind of what he does. He's been known to say one thing and then the contrary the next day. repeteadly.

I'm not sure of what idiotic statement you're mentionning, I was just pointing out that Trump was officially endorsed by nazis. I don't think we're gonna have a cartoonish "Nazi America", however your concerns should not only be economy and international relationship, but a very palatable reason to believe we'll have…

This is the actual editorial from the "official" american nazi party website, written by his chairman Suhayda (but maybe you will tell me it was hacked by the CIA to discredit Trump?)
Go read this (sorry in advance to everybody for linking this. it's disgusting):

ok, fair enough, I'm not litterate in good sources I trust to read from the US press, since I'm not from there, and didn't check the site, but the article is not the point, these things have been said. Steve Bannon is indeed behind a website that provides a tribune for these people, and shares their ideas. No he…

(edit shit I'm tired I didn't see the sarcasm)

(edit shit I'm tired I didn't see the sarcasm)

yeah the situation is different we got it. it's 2016 in the USA. History doesn't actually repeat itself.
The think is to find the similitudes and why they would matter.

“Perhaps The Donald is for real”

The american nazi party endorsed Trump, and he's totally ok with it. His chief strategist regularly publish and praise proclaimed nazi"""thinkers""" in his """journal""", or people that regularly reference the 3rd reich. those are hard facts. So yeah comparing a fiction where the nazis are in power where a reality…

no, it's comparing nazis, with, well, actual nazis, that have very close ties with part of Trump staff (Bannon in particular).
In case you missed it here are the very words of the head of the american nazi party Suhayda:

wow. just took a gut punch realising nazis in power in the USA wasn't a ludicrous dystopia anymore, but a very palatable reality.

(pardon my french..)

I see your point, but they're writing for people who watch shows for fun.
Besides I kinda find it pointless to write episode-to-episode review on a show.
It's a bit like reviewing a movie in slices of 20 minutes.
I'd find it a lot more interesting to have more in depth critical analysis of whole seasons or even whole…

what's the avclub writers obsession with length these days? I really like that shows stop being constrained to 40 minutes and start taking the time they need. I've red this on Mr Robot, Westwood, and now here. It's not like it's a twenty minutes fixed shot of a zombie eating a dear. These things are still very much…

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding about William, he's not really the "nice guy turned villain"; he's only driven by curiosity. He wants to push the system to its limit to see if he can somehow make it glitch. He's like any kid getting out of the track in a racing videgame to get to the edge of the scenery,…

I think that "subpar characterisation" you mention is actually the whole point of the show. What's interesting is discerning the canned routine and archetypal characterisation of the hosts from the moment they gradually actually come to life. and that's subtle. Human on the show, on the other hand, are pretty boring…

Overall this show is fucking brilliant. I really like how during the season humans inhabiting the park are found to be less and less interesting and more and more predictible, as hosts become central characters that you identify with and root for, with this unique, creepy and fascinating uncanny valley aesthetic, and…

"So, there are samurai on hand. Are there other sections of the park we haven’t seen yet?"
Yes we can definitely assume that. The paper the tech guy gives to Maeve with the location of her "daughter" says "parc 1 section…"

that would be a brilliant idea. "well here is my new chief strategist, Mr Hat (wears his kkk pointy hat). what's that mr hat? time to build that big wall?" (maybe reality is already too far ahead of the satire in the regard)

choosing sides in a make-believe boxing match is not what can seriously be called "being political". Satirizing or adressing actual real life issues would be more what I'd call "being political". But they don't do that much of that either these days. It doesn't get really further than light silly dadaesque jokes.…