|
On September 13 2018 02:00 xDaunt wrote:Speaking of the media being implicated, have you seen this 2012 email from Blumenthal to Hillary stating that Bob Woodward is an FBI asset and his career is dependent upon the FBI?
But you know Eric Trump said shekel though right?! lol
Of course Woodward is an FBI asset, has been since at least 69 when he was cultivated by Sullivan.
|
So GH -- over in the Justice League thread, there was discussion about casting Michael B. Jordan as the new Superman in replacement of Henry Cavill. What do you think of that idea?
|
On September 13 2018 07:30 xDaunt wrote:
So GH -- over in the Justice League thread, there was discussion about casting Michael B. Jordan as the new Superman in replacement of Henry Cavill. What do you think of that idea?
I don't know a lot about the content horizon for DC, but that seems odd.
If they were doing a new Superman story (like they've done 10k spidermans) I'd be fine with it and even interested, if they are just going to sub him into their "universe" to fill some cameo roles in other movies, it reads to me like a shitty PR ploy.
Also All Hail King Killmonger!
|
Yes, it is definitely a shitty PR ploy -- notwithstanding the fact that I like Michael B. Jordan.
How about this question -- do you like this general trend of taking established characters/franchises and artificially turning them over to minorities (race, sex, sexual preference -- you name it)?
|
On September 13 2018 08:04 xDaunt wrote:
Yes, it is definitely a shitty PR ploy -- notwithstanding the fact that I like Michael B. Jordan.
How about this question -- do you like this general trend of taking established characters/franchises and artificially turning them over to minorities (race, sex, sexual preference -- you name it)?
I have no problem with not using white actors/ different genders for characters that were white in comics or even previous Hollywood adaptions. Expecting it to carry a shitty story or poor directing is another ball of wax though.
Like I want to look forward to Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse but I have the distinct feeling it's going to end up poorly done.
EDIT: I guess I should clarify that I'm fine with substituting under represented people into roles previously depicted as typically straight white men/women.
Not cool with turning the limited representation some minorities get into white roles, unless backed with one hell of a story.
|
Don’t you find it somewhat demeaning that Hollywood has decided that minorities cannot stand on their own? Take Oceans 8 as an example. Why was it necessary to bootstrap those women to the male franchise?
|
On September 13 2018 10:17 xDaunt wrote:
Don’t you find it somewhat demeaning that Hollywood has decided that minorities cannot stand on their own? Take Oceans 8 as an example. Why was it necessary to bootstrap those women to the male franchise?
Meh, women are a majority, just not in representation politically or in Hollywood.
It strikes me more as trying to stretch a franchise using cheap PR/sensationalism (for which the women are paid handsomely). Generally I don't care, but it's not something I watched or will ever pay to see.
If I wanted to care it would be about creating original quality content and how much easier that would be by not making every back story white.
|
Hey! Who'da thunk that GH making an alternative US pol thread with less rules would turn into an xDaunt vs GH bitchslapping contest. Nobody could *ever* have thought that would happen.
I have to say, I was a bit disillusioned with the actual US pol thread lately, but looking at this shitshow give me faith that TL moderation made the right decision with that thread and the rules to be enforced. Wow.
|
On September 13 2018 20:39 Acrofales wrote:
Hey! Who'da thunk that GH making an alternative US pol thread with less rules would turn into an xDaunt vs GH bitchslapping contest. Nobody could *ever* have thought that would happen.
I have to say, I was a bit disillusioned with the actual US pol thread lately, but looking at this shitshow give me faith that TL moderation made the right decision with that thread and the rules to be enforced. Wow.
Bitchslapping contest? You have it backwards. The conversation here has been perfectly reasonable, despite GH and I being on very different places on the political spectrum. That, combined with you coming in here and needlessly shitting up this thread, is proof of just how wrong the mods were and have always been.
|
On September 13 2018 20:39 Acrofales wrote:
Hey! Who'da thunk that GH making an alternative US pol thread with less rules would turn into an xDaunt vs GH bitchslapping contest. Nobody could *ever* have thought that would happen.
I have to say, I was a bit disillusioned with the actual US pol thread lately, but looking at this shitshow give me faith that TL moderation made the right decision with that thread and the rules to be enforced. Wow.
I agree with xDaunt. You can join us or not, it's up to you. But posts like that aren't going to be welcomed here. Consider this a warning.
|
Today New York is voting, or well trying. Turns out one of the Bluest states in the country is STILL one of the worst when it comes to disenfranchising voters.
Clumsily designed ballots. An antiquated registration process. Confusing deadlines and outdated laws. Long lines and no early voting. New York State—caricatured as a bastion of progressive politics—has some of the most retrograde voting laws and practices in the nation. Reports of dysfunction from Thursday’s primary only add to the evidence: New York is disenfranchising its citizens.
How dire is it? A few numbers. Only 57 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot in the 2016 presidential election, ranking the Empire State 41st in the nation for turnout. In the last midterm election, turnout statewide hit an abysmal 34 percent, almost the lowest in the country. In New York City, just 12 percent of eligible voters showed up for the 2017 mayoral primary.
The problem isn’t energy or enthusiasm: New Yorkers are as tuned into politics as anyone. The problem is the system.
First and worst, New York uses an outdated voter-registration method that puts the onus on residents to stamp and mail paper forms, and update their information whenever they move out of county. It’s error-prone and inefficient.
New York is also one of just 13 states where early voting is unavailable. Voters may only cast an absentee ballot in very limited circumstances, making it one of the most restrictive processes in the country.
Want to switch parties? If you don’t register the change months ahead of time, you’re out of luck: No primary voting for you. (Even the president’s daughter missed that rule.) On top of that, the state fails to offer same-day registration.
One frustrating aspect of the situation in New York is that statewide politicians have repeatedly paid lip service to ideas such as early voting, only to knock those proposals out of the state budget months later. And there has been little effort to change some of the state’s most confusing voting quirks—New York is the only state that holds its federal and state primaries on different days, costing millions for an unnecessary, additional day of balloting. (That’s why there’s no shame if you thought to yourself: “Wait, New York’s holding a primary today? I thought that already happened.” It did!)
All this comes alongside a disconcerting degree of bad administration. Last year, the state was singled out by the Department of Justice for its failures to comply with federal laws designed to facilitate voter registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles. During the 2016 presidential primary, the nonpartisan Election Protection voter hotline received more calls from New Yorkers than from states with notoriously restrictive systems like Texas and Georgia because of delayed poll openings, equipment malfunctions, and party-registration errors.
So long as liberals only focus on Southern states and Republicans (or The Witcher/Star Wars/Thomas the Tank Engine) the real problems (that both parties are trash) go unaddressed.
Related, a quick tip on why you don't take political advice from celebrities (or pay celebrities for endorsements):
+ Show Spoiler +
Lot's of reports of problems voting out of New York.
Also, Massachusetts is exploding.
|
Solving voter disenfranchisement is pretty easy. Just allow universal absentee voting. If people can’t get their shit together to be properly registered and mail in their ballots, that’s on them.
|
And I have to say, this last minute attack on Kavanaugh by Feinstein is pretty low and disgraceful even by democrat standards. Anonymous accuser. Incident happened in high school (lol). Who gives a flying fuck.
|
On September 14 2018 08:21 xDaunt wrote:
Solving voter disenfranchisement is pretty easy. Just allow universal absentee voting. If people can’t get their shit together to be properly registered and mail in their ballots, that’s on them.
So you oppose automatic voter registration?
|
On September 14 2018 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 08:21 xDaunt wrote:
Solving voter disenfranchisement is pretty easy. Just allow universal absentee voting. If people can’t get their shit together to be properly registered and mail in their ballots, that’s on them. So you oppose automatic voter registration?
I wouldn't make it "automatic" simply to avoid errors, but it should be widely available. Colorado's system works just as fine as far I am concerned. Anyone can get a mail in ballot. Registration can be done online or in person at a variety of places.
|
On September 14 2018 12:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 14 2018 08:21 xDaunt wrote:
Solving voter disenfranchisement is pretty easy. Just allow universal absentee voting. If people can’t get their shit together to be properly registered and mail in their ballots, that’s on them. So you oppose automatic voter registration? I wouldn't make it "automatic" simply to avoid errors, but it should be widely available. Colorado's system works just as fine as far I am concerned. Anyone can get a mail in ballot. Registration can be done online or in person at a variety of places.
Doesn't seem unreasonable, though making it part of your first ID/renewal after 18 makes sense as well. So the reason we haven't made these improvements is because suppressing voters is a bipartisan affair no?
|
On September 14 2018 12:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2018 12:41 xDaunt wrote:On September 14 2018 12:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 14 2018 08:21 xDaunt wrote:
Solving voter disenfranchisement is pretty easy. Just allow universal absentee voting. If people can’t get their shit together to be properly registered and mail in their ballots, that’s on them. So you oppose automatic voter registration? I wouldn't make it "automatic" simply to avoid errors, but it should be widely available. Colorado's system works just as fine as far I am concerned. Anyone can get a mail in ballot. Registration can be done online or in person at a variety of places. Doesn't seem unreasonable, though making it part of your first ID/renewal after 18 makes sense as well. So the reason we haven't made these improvements is because suppressing voters is a bipartisan affair no?
I’m hesitant to say that it is intentional so much as it is simply incompetence, but yes, it is a bipartisan issue.
|
Wow, some democrats are doubling down on this Kavanaugh sexual misconduct nonsense. And they're even trotting out Ronan Farrow!
|
On September 15 2018 01:42 xDaunt wrote:
Wow, some democrats are doubling down on this Kavanaugh sexual misconduct nonsense. And they're even trotting out Ronan Farrow!
Well imo he's probably a creep who did stuff I wouldn't want a SC judge to have done in their past.
But Democrats are going to give him votes anyway so I don't see how making him out to be a lying rapist doesn't just make the Dems who support his confirmation look even worse than the Republicans who at least don't believe it's what it's portrayed as.
Just like Democrats made Trump out to be the apocolypse and then were perfectly fine with Obama handing him the power to nuke the world and giving him a tour of his new house. That's not how you treat someone you sincerely think may bring about the end of the world and only won because of foreign meddling.
Democrats are spineless save for when defending their big money sponsors against the left.
|
On September 15 2018 07:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2018 01:42 xDaunt wrote:
Wow, some democrats are doubling down on this Kavanaugh sexual misconduct nonsense. And they're even trotting out Ronan Farrow! Well imo he's probably a creep who did stuff I wouldn't want a SC judge to have done in their past. But Democrats are going to give him votes anyway so I don't see how making him out to be a lying rapist doesn't just make the Dems who support his confirmation look even worse than the Republicans who at least don't believe it's what it's portrayed as. Just like Democrats made Trump out to be the apocolypse and then were perfectly fine with Obama handing him the power to nuke the world and giving him a tour of his new house. That's not how you treat someone you sincerely think may bring about the end of the world and only won because of foreign meddling. Democrats are spineless save for when defending their big money sponsors against the left.
Wait, wait, wait. How do you get to "he's probably a creep?" All we have is a letter by some anonymous woman who has been quiet for the past 40 years or whatever. Even presuming that that everything that she says in the letter is true, it still isn't a big deal given how long ago it happened and the total absence of any evidence of similar instances of conduct (quite the contrary, actually). What's far more likely is that this woman's account is flawed like the accounts of so many other #metoo accusers, which is why she never reported this nothing burger when it happened.
Now, you raise an interesting point about appropriate levels of resistance. What exactly do you think that the democrats should be doing when it comes Kavanaugh given that they don't have the votes to stop his appointment? For that matter, what do you think democrats should have done when Trump won the election?
I mean shit, it's not like democrats (and many republicans for that matter) haven't gone to unprecedented lengths to sabotage Trump's presidency. Just look at what they have done with that horseshit Steele dossier and the ensuing Mueller investigation. Even when the Mueller investigation winds down and closes without finding any wrongdoing by Trump (which seems inevitable at this point), there won't be any doubt that the whole process will have inflicted a tremendous amount of damage upon Trump's presidency (and the country as a whole).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
