semireformedfan
SemiReformedFangirl
semireformedfan

Honestly, I feel like the “can a cheater be a feminist” argument misses the point a bit. The problem isn’t that he cheated as much as his behavior related to it (acting like the fault lies with all these “aggressive and needy actresses” or whatever it was, which is a mega creepy, bordering on predatory line of

He’s also wearing an Identity Europa polo shirt in the photo. The weird triangle logo thing.

Not sure if you’ve seen the updates, but Google rejected them.

Honestly, I think we’re setting up for the exact opposite of her entering into a scheme with Littlefinger. Sansa’s increasingly over his nonsense and her #1 priority is keeping her remaining family members alive (which is def not his priority and conflicts with hers since he clearly dgaf about any Stark other than

1. She was asked during the Fusion (iirc) town hall thingy where Sanders was also asked. She talked about the importance of paying back the black community in some way (which is not the same as reparations), said she would ask the Congressional Black Caucus and other leaders for counsel on the matter, and that was

I’ve generally observed one of two approaches from the Snyder fanboys. 1- insistence that it isn’t that good because it isn’t like the movies they like or 2- insistence that Snyder deserves as much or more credit than Jenkins for the movie’s quality.

I’d be willing to bet DC burnout was a major issue, as was timing, as gometz points out. The prior DC movies were garbage so I know a lot of people, even hardcore comics folks who were playing the wait and see game. DC also SERIOUSLY failed to market this- consider how much advertising you saw for BvS and Suicide

But with continuing pressure, I’d be unsurprised to see these items, or at least some step towards them, become standard Democratic positions before 2020 (if we’re not all living in a Mad Max wasteland by then)

It basically boils down to time and energy being finite, especially when you’ll need to ask the public to get involved. You MUST prioritize. Right now, there is no way we have the votes for single payer, so there is no reason to have it on the to do list at all, especially when the ACA repeal would have such horrific

I’m in a hurry so I’ll probably respond more thoroughly later, but I need to point out that the GOP got where they are by exploiting racism, gerrymandering, and suppressing democratic leaning voters. It’s impossible to overlook those in factors in the GOP’s consolidation of power.

I don’t think I said they didn’t know better. I said that historically while people like the idea of populist social programs and generally like them a lot once they are implemented, there are some serious hurdles to get them implemented. My opinion that humans are garbage at risk-benefit assessment isn’t born of

I only addressed Senate procedure there. Allow me to also address the House. In the House, the caucuses do still have Majority and Minority leaders elected within the caucus and the exact role of the Majority leader is determined by the Speaker. The Speaker is determined by a vote of the entire House. So,

It actually does matter. The number of GOP vs number of Dems determine who is Majority vs Minority and that is determined by the party caucuses not how individuals vote. This kind of procedural thing is all based on norms and the presumed good faith of the actors, which is part of the problem right now. The GOP has

You misunderstand my terminology- by single issue popularity, I wasn’t saying “because one issue is popular”, I was saying using the polling about any given single issue. With the exception of universal background checks (where the issue is very very much coming from the GOP and the NRA being dicks since even Manchin

Using single issue popularity as a gauge is short sighted. First, it’s highly subjective based on the framing of the question, as is often the case with polling.

1. Yes, they got a huge swing but it’s still less than majority which is technically the “win” they were going for. Unless you’re defining win as “didn’t lose as badly as they were supposed to” which I am actually fine with! But again be consistent because Ossoff also got a huge swing in terms of numbers of votes!

Running as a Republican would be a stupid, stupid idea because if they did manage to win then they would be count towards the GOP caucus(ie doesn’t break the GOP majority)unless they like immediately change party affiliation, which is going to come off as incredibly duplicitous to voters.

Corbyn didn’t win though. Labour made gains and lost narrowly, ie the exact same thing Ossoff did here. Labour is arguably in a more advantageous position but that’s at least partly a function of the parliamentary system.

Now playing

Here is the video Gob_Hobblin referenced. It addresses most of the points you make.

I know David Frum is kind of a shitlord, although one who at least manages to be anti-Trump, but I think he really nailed it with this: