Pidesco

Disregarding his action competence in the comic, I always thought Valérian looked older, experienced, a bit tired and world weary, but still outclassed by Laureline at his job every step of the way. DeHaan comes across as a bit too young.

One of advantage of electing Trump is that we won't need to choose a title for Bill Clinton. First Laddie, First Man, First Sir, First Dude? The possibilities are endless. Fortunately Trump already has the perfect official title:

I really, really hope this won't suck but I'm not optimistic. http://youtu.be/PxH45ivUomw

A two party system is actually really, really limited and leads to stagnation and marginalization of ideologies that are not centrist. I certainly think that a guy like Guard Dog would be better served by a Libertarian party with a minority place in the House than as a majority in a two party system.

Here is the link for the whole piece. It's well written: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-democratic-party-deserves-to-die_us_58236ad5e4b0aac62488cde5 Looking past the national elections at the state level it's even more shocking. 33 of 50 state governors are Republican. 69 of 98 state legislative bodies are under Republican control. In 24 states the Republicans control ALL positions of political power. The Democrat Party is essentially extinct in every state south of Kentucky and east of Texas. Not a single elected Democrat above State Representative or State Senate is in office. This did not happen this election. This has been happening ever since 2010. There are a lot of reasons that can be surmised for this but it cannot be denied that is IS happening. It's no secret I have nothing but antipathy for the Democrats. The are the party of no freedom. They are the party of mandatory compliance, compulsion by force, collectivism and communitarianisim enforced at gunpoint. They are the party of sorting people by class, race, gender, and identity politics. As I said they are the absolute antithesis of freedom. And they are dying out. That is not a good thing however. Two party rule is bad. One party rule is terrifying. I do tend to favor the Republicans more than the Democrats because they are more supportive of individual liberty. But only a little and they will run amok without competition just like the Democrats did in 2008-2010 when they owned everything in sight. We need the Democrat Party to look back at who they once were, the Party of Jacksonian Democracy. The Party of Jack and Bobby Kennedy. Lyndon Johnson began turning away from that. Carter was never interested in it and Clinton only found it when he had no other choice. Barack Obama is so far from a Jacksonian Democrat he might as well be in a whole new political party. And the same could be said for all the party leaders today. Bennie Sanders was NOT showing the Democrats the way forward. Far from it. If they are to survive they need to look backwards to go forwards. Remember what worked, and what the American people needed. I hope that happens as much as I hope for the future success and influence expansion of both the Libertarian and Green parties. We need more voices, more competing visions for our future, not fewer. But from a lot of the articles I'm reading the pundits and the Democrats are going to draw the wrong conclusions and convince themselves the flaws are in their stars rather than themselves. Hubris and denial make a sad combination. Like it or not, the Democrats are not dying out yet. Clinton still barely won the overall popular vote, crushed Trump among millennials, and the current Republican advantage in Congress is highly dependent on gerrymandering. Also, let's not forget that Trump actually got less votes than both McCain and Romney. Regarding the advantage of Republicans in State legislatures that you point out, that's obviously due to Republican voters being much more spread out all over the US. The typical Democrat lives in areas with much higher population and, as such, only wins states that have larger cities. This obviously also has an enormous effect on the composition of the Senate. Now, all that said and for the sake of the argument, if the Democratic Party really went belly up, the voters that would be left hanging out to dry by the Republican coalition would be the ones you disagree with. The ones who'd like single payer healthcare, who'd want federal increases in the minimum wage, who'd love better gun control measures and more open borders. I imagine that if a new party, or a reformed Democratic party managed to cater to this demographic while finding a way to appeal to the working class, it would be running away with elections until some sort of upheaval happened to the GOP.

This is pretty brilliant:

Why would it be illegal? I'm not sure. Can the Federal government withdraw funding unilaterally? Isn't the possibility of the federal government overstepping its bounds a big deal in the US?

McConnell has already said the first point is dead on arrival. The third point is unbearably retarded. I don't see how the fourth point will ever get past anything. Do the third and fourth points on the second list actually mean anything of substance? The fifth, sixth and seventh points are a disaster and include,at least, one clear oxymoron. On to the third list. Isn't the third point illegal? The fourth point is going to go so well. From the last list I have no idea I have no idea what the congress would go for, other than repealing Obamacare, I guess. It kinda reads like a masterclass in how to increase debt in the fastest way possible. He is probably going for the Bankruptcy achievement.

Meh, as Ross Perot said, you don't have to own the cow to get the milk. And it would be cheaper to buy your produce in pesos once you rejoin Mexico. I thought you disliked globalization and wanted to get production and jobs back in America. "Buy American" or whatever.

What if I told you Trump under performed when compared to Romney, and it was Clinton that lost the election all by her lonesome.

We'll wipe our collective ass with it of course. I hear there's a special counsel with Hilzilla's name on him. I was serious but ok. Climate change deniers will soon be at the wheel.

What will the US do with the Paris accords is a big question now.

https://twitter.com/bpedaci/status/796205042802065409?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Well, that's unexpected.

Reviews for Tyranny should only come out on the day of release.

As far as generic blockbuster action movies go, I have to say I really like the MCU movies. They are unabashedly generic, and geared towards huge demographics but, for all the watering down that entails, the movies are really well done for what they are, even the worst ones like Thor and Hulk. MCU movies are certainly much better than any Michael Bay movie, for example.

How do the logistics work by the way? If, say 10 years later, Trumpian holocaust still hasn't come, have you been eating food by expiration date for several years? Do you keep an organized roll-in/roll-out of food every day? Every weekend you take out the food from storage that's closest to expiring, while buying food to replace that? Do you eat fresh food?

I love these kinds of alternative theories. Please elaborate: How could his family support support him for fooling all of the american people, are they also in on it? Or is he such a tyrant that they are afraid of him? What if the plan fails and he becomes elected? What conspiracy theory? It's been rumored for months that Trump insiders have been pitching around for sort of news network. Whether that's a new Fox News, or a new Breitbart I have no idea. I don't see what his family has to do with it, but now that you mention fear, I thought this was interesting when I saw it the other day: https://www.facebook.com/scottmelker/posts/10154800337414739 It certainly would dovetail nicely with the weird relationship appears to have had with his dad. I didn't say conspiracy theory, you did. Anyways, so you are suggesting that he is a tyrant whose family supporting him out of fear, according by a friend of one of his children. It needs more bite though to be juicy, i am thinking in the veins of the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_the_Great Now that's hardcore made out of legends. Yeah, sorry about the conspiracy theory bit. I'm not suggesting he is a tyrant, necessarily. It's that there goes a long way between showing a united public family front during the campaign, and that he depends on his family's permission to do whatever he wants. I was trying to find that bit of interview where Trump is asked what his dad would think of his bid to be President. I couldn't find it, but his reply was insanely weird. Trump replied that his dad would allow it. In any case I'm sure Fred must have big quota of responsibility for what his son turned out to be. @Guard Dog: On the subject of "death lists": http://www.nachumlist.com/deadpool.htm http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bushdeathlist.htm

I love these kinds of alternative theories. Please elaborate: How could his family support support him for fooling all of the american people, are they also in on it? Or is he such a tyrant that they are afraid of him? What if the plan fails and he becomes elected? What conspiracy theory? It's been rumored for months that Trump insiders have been pitching around for sort of news network. Whether that's a new Fox News, or a new Breitbart I have no idea. I don't see what his family has to do with it, but now that you mention fear, I thought this was interesting when I saw it the other day: https://www.facebook.com/scottmelker/posts/10154800337414739 It certainly would dovetail nicely with the weird relationship appears to have had with his dad.

Trump TV.

Hahaha.

So after all these posts on people accusing others of badly supporting facts with narratives personal, and narratives linked to those advertising the facts - I make a bad joke, and link to the first newspaper on google for the uninformed that details those facts - and you stick the middle finger up at my joke to discredit it becasue of the politics of the daily mail. I'm pretty sure he didn't "stick the middle finger up at your joke to discredit it because of the politics of the Daily Mail", he pointed out that the Daily Mail in no way counts as a credible source. Yes, but - Huma Abedins husband has been found sending texts to a 15 year old girl: "Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former US congressman, has been exposed for exchanging sexting messages with a 15-year-old girl." My joke was about a sex pervert who relapsed from sex therapy treatment: "But sex therapy and addiction experts say the program he enrolled in shortly after his resignation wouldn’t have done much to address the root causes behind his behavior." It's not the narrative of the source - it's the facts they bring up. Unless you are denying that this person has not been exposed sexting to a 15 year old?...and then we're right back to "THE RUSSIANS (unproven) vs George Soros owning a significant number of voting machines (proven). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/21/disgraced-anthony-weiner-sorry-for-texts-to-15-year-old-girl/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/sex-therapy-experts-anthony-weiner-not-cured?utm_term=.ybqBmbnLd#.wuokyK2e8 I went and checked the Soros thing. http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/

So is the claim here that Marina Abramovic is an insane alternative "artist" person or that the DNC are a bunch of satanists by association?

She didn't do any of that.

Except, of course, that he is not really in the running.