This is such bullshit, I just can’t let it go:

Total waste of narrative space. Either they add a throwaway explanation, which will be picked apart by the map-truthers, or they ignore it and everyone else understands that TV shows don’t describe events in real time.

Or they’re just lying because that move is still two-plus years away and they don’t want to give away much about either film. I wouldn’t overthink it.

The flaw is that “big ideas it can get behind” don’t translate into achievement. There wasn’t any possibility of achieving any of it, no matter how much you want to spout about “big ideas”. Turnout wasn’t down. Performance wasn’t down. You weren’t going to get “50%” of anything by “aiming high”. You keep pretending…

Ah, more vague, aspirational nonsense. What does it look like to “reach for more”? Seems a lot like the empty shtick that has gotten you nowhere to date.

No, it’s the central point.

Except that he’s been talking about a shake up the status quo for 35 years. Status quos shaken up? Zero.

If you think great policies have anything to do with great politicians, you must be new to this planet.

Susan Sarandon is a caustic idiot grinding a 20-year-old axe. But by all means, keep cherry-picking instigators as your supposed victims. You’re doing a great job of reinforcing the original point.

In order to enforce a law against someone, they must have violated their legal duty to follow it. If the violation of the contract were not against the law, there would be no court empowered to make a ruling on the matter.

Where do you people get these harebrained ideas? The right to contract is protected by law. Entering into a contract is legally binding. That’s the whole goddamn point of a contract: to create a legal duty. Breaching a contract is a violation of a legal duty. A court, even a civil court, is empowered only to enforce…

You’re a false pedant. The right to enter into a contract is a legal right, and breach of a legal right is, of course, against the law.

Yes, votes cast. But not who they voted FOR.

UBI, mid to long term just doesn’t work. If everyone gets, say, $1K a month to start, the price of everything one would need to buy merely increases to the point where $1K is, essentially, $0.

Your argument is circular. If you worked, you would get paid for that work. Otherwise, you would be free to volunteer, care for family, pursue your own education, or engage in artistic pursuits. Whether you have any artistic skill is immaterial since you’re fulfilling your own wishes, not seeking a fortune through…

And for no particular plot reason other than to set up the stupid-ass Nexus fantasy with pretend Beverly!

How much do you want to bet that NYPD Parking Enforcement found a reason to ticket it on top of everything else?

I mean, the biggest clue is in the name: if it truly has a frame, it’s not unibody construction.

Because it’s the worst of both worlds. You don’t have the manufacturing cost and complexity savings or the full safety benefits of going unibody (because you still have the multi-component structure), AND you don’t get the full twisty benefits of a separate frame because the front 2/3 of the truck is just a compact…

You’re both just talking past each other. If you have $400 cash and $50/mo is available from your income, but are trying to buy a $1000 sofa, you have three options: