The Republicans are feminists! They were so determined to get Hillary elected as the first female President, despite being a corrupt old crone and all that, that they fielded the ONE person in America she could beat! How nice of them.

Have a snakebite kit handy! Hmm, that makes me think I could improve on the illustration…

At great personal risk, I googled that for all of ya:

Meathead fratboy definitely should not consider running for President. But I have a funny feeling there's no risk of that. I'm sure his career at Burger King will not be endangered by his antics.

Pretty much, yeah.

Also, Trump's problem is being a huge asshole in the first place.

The President should be more above human error than Trump, that's for sure.

Even if "most people" have, all that means is that "most people" should not be President! Are we not allowed to have higher standards for who we vote for than we have for ourselves, considering we're not trying to become the most powerful person in the world?

Okay, we get it. You have no standards or the ability to fathom that other people do. Not even so much for ourselves as for the MOST POWERFUL PERSON IN THE WORLD. Which we are electing. Should we just grab any random bum off the street, dust him off and prop him up in the Oval Office?

Anyone who thinks in such gutter terms really should not be President. Ever. Working at a fast food joint? That's fine. We should have standards higher than the basement when electing the world's most powerful person.

Then we should elect the dullest person on the planet President if that's the only way we won't end up with an embarrassing, disgusting sleazy creep as the world's most powerful person.

Even if he does think this kind of talk is par for the course, he's not the sort of person anyone should dream of electing President. It's the most powerful office in the world! isn't it desirable to have, I dunno, slightly higher standards than for your average gutter dwelling bum, reality TV huckster or real estate…

I'm not voting for you for President. But I assume you're not delusional enough to think you have a hope in hell anyway. So what's the point of that comment?

Soooooo….I guess the Dems were hanging onto this as the October Surprise to knock Trump out of the race, but Trump's been doing such a good job of that, that they decided, "what the fuck" and just released it a couple weeks early for shits & giggles.

I love Archer, it should just go on forever (like The Simpsons). But why didn't they embrace the insane comedic possibilities in the happy coincidence of being named ISIS? Why not a running joke that Mallory is too cheap to change the name (we'd have to get all new stationary and business cards!) and Archer can't…

We're headed into a world where all content (except for superhero franchise movies for movie theaters) are made exclusively for streaming services. Broadcast is going to retrench to just live TV like sports, which is what still attracts the under-49 viewers who are willing to watch ads (the whole point of broadcast)…

Well unless you only watch things once. Then it gets pricey and takes up too much shelf space.

Or they're launching their own streaming services. Or they're starting to make content FOR those services (like CBS making Star Trek just so they can put it on streaming).

And they knew they would have a difficult time because sooner or later, the Hollywood studios would realize Netflix is going to undermine the distribution part of their business and slam on the licensing brakes. They've planned for this for years.

How do you know they were available for Netflix to license at a reasonable price? Do you work for the licensing department of the studio that owns the rights?