I like watching gaming videos mostly for the commentary. If a group of gamers doesn't have good banter with each other I get bored pretty quickly. There's also games I'm interested in that I have no desire to play (hello, new Resident Evil game), so I enjoy watching other people play it while I do paperwork, eat…

And it sounded like said skeleton was really just 'the Oprah show used to be kind of trashy'. In comparison to ' we have an interview that shows some of the horrible things a candidate has done in his past that are important considerations now', it makes potential complaints from her company seem aggressively silly.

I was wondering that, too. I think she probably was, but if there's some twist later on in the series that she never was then I wouldn't be that shocked either.

You're right. I forgot about them/generally do everything in my power to forget they exist.

Ah, then yes, that's right. Sorry shadow if I misread your post!

Yes, absolutely. If he was really following through on plans to make us 'safer' (which that's, like you said, debatable right there), he would be dealing with Saudi Arabia immigration but of course he's not. It's all for show and he has to protect his business interests.

That's not totally accurate.

You're only allowed to say rude things in every public platform if you're running for president, apparently. Everyone else shut your mouth.

Pro-life groups weren't banned. They were not taken on as sponsors as their ideals did not line up with the ones in the march. There's a big difference between that and :banned". Stop throwing around misinformation.

It seems much more likely given his relationships with any kind of press that we just won't have any Correspondent Dinner/s during his term.

My thoughts exactly. It's just long enough that he can find a way to stretch it out longer still.

Even though weirdly the ones he didn't ban are the ones we've had terror issues with before beforehand (albeit limited ones). It's almost like he just makes decisions based solely on one benefits him… hmmmm.

That was my thought too. Now is THE TIME to go to the oscars and to get on stage so you can use your speech time to say important things that people might actually listen to.

..

It's disgusting. It's the first step in silencing the voice of an entire group of people and after that anything he does can't be good.

I don't get how that's any different than the plot of Batman V. Superman though.

I think the best thing I saw all week was a facebook post from some congressmen or senator (I stupidly can't remember which, that's on me) who stated he was voting for Btesy DeVos because he's a republican and I guess in his mind that means he has to (not his exact words but more or less). The comments he got from…

I don't really have a horse in either race, but I am curious as to why you think DC is trying new things every movie? From the ones I've seen (Nolan Batman movies aside, though not entirely, even), it's kind of the same thing over and over too? I'd like to hear why you disagree.

I agree. I would argue that maybe the DC movies are 'ambitious', and I do understand the desire to have 'darker' comic book films that appeal to an older audience, but I think they just go about it in an entirely misguided way that equates 'lots of violence' and 'literally no color that's not black or blue' to 'mature…

Oh if only, though.