She is dishonest and she is pandering. She’s a politician speaking about a dead person! OF COURSE SHE’S DISHONEST AND SHE’S PANDERING.

No, but it’s a kind of awkwardness you see with smart people. She’s trying to segue away from talking about Nancy Reagan’s advocacy for Stem Cell Research. She knows HIV/AIDS became a big deal when Reagan was president. Health advocacy + HIV/AIDS = This.

She’s just awkward as hell and obviously ignorant w/r/t queer history. It’s a gaffe, but Hillary was never good at speaking off-the-cuff. Bill was the charming one, she was the smart one.

They are overt, that’s true, but I’d argue that they’re not establishment. They’re speaking to people that’ve been abandonned by the establishment, and the best way to speak to low-information voters that’ve been abandonned by the establishment is in clear, simple, overt language.

To an extent, that’s true, but people elected Clinton for a reason: they wanted change. Specifically economic change. 70% of voters in ‘92 thought that the economy was in bad shape and wanted a policy change to deal with that. What they got was the continuance of previous trends.

Clinton (and the democratic leadership surrounding him at the time) were the ones who decided to let the overton window shrink and move substantially to the right on economic and financial policy. That, more than any specific policy he enacted, is really the problem. It’s why Obama felt comfortable identifying himself…

Realistically speaking it’s not Trump’s fault. It’s probably Bill Clinton’s. He made Reaganite economic policy into Democratic economic policy with his welfare cuts. In doing so he cemented a post-reagan economic consensus where prosperity gospel Republicans and technocratic Democrats alike systematically ignored…

No, but they think that protesting and demonstrating are suppression of free speech rather than examples of it because they’re more aligned with the people and policies that are protested than with the people protesting.

Yeah, the trailer is misleading. Perhaps because of anxiety over comparisons to Giannoli’s Marguerite.

Is anyone surprised by this? Harry Potter is reactionary as fuck and her personal politics (as shown by her massive donation to the NO campaign and her squashy anglicanism) are the epitome of mealy-mouthed love-me-i’m-a-liberal nonsense.

The Caitlin Moran piece from the same issue tackles that in a really great way IMO.

Yeah, I should’ve mentioned that. He’d still have a lot of the power -and- be getting a lot of the money. The slimy prick.

They do it because the people at higher levels are typically older and lack social media know-how, so they tend to just hand accounts over to dumb fresh out of college kids who seem to know so much more. Especially if said kids have a lot of followers or any SEO experience.

She can, in theory, work with another producer, but he’d still be in charge and Sony has refused to take her seriously, so...

Some emoji are clearly gendered, once you scroll past the yellow smiley faces. For instance, on my phone, the emoji of a swimmer is clearly male because of a number of gendered cues to do with clothing and build.

Well, they’re not framing it as introducing female emoji. They’re traming it as introducing female and androgynous emoji as a standard practice. Hopefully the androgynous emoji would be the norm.

I thought the Ms. Pacman makeover was better music and level design

No, it’s a pretty dumb dream. It’s still a dream worth having even though, realistically speaking, we’re probably still going to die on this planet. Humans are irrational, and believing in space isn’t any stupider than believing in, say, national boundaries.

The episode comedy episode was pretty good. The problem is that the X-Files has always been a bettert post-modern procedural than an ongoing drama, and Carter was way too interested in long-running plot threads.

Snake is probably gay. Or at least, two of them are.