Mrebo

TV’s Frink said:

I’m wrong all the time.

Problem solved 😃

Valheru_84 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Valheru_84 said:

the lone ship flying in a straight line (like in a trench)

Hahaha, I’m almost willing to concede that you have a point (I don’t really care about this kind of stuff, I like TFA and it’s much more obvious about it) but this is ridiculous.

What’s ridiculous? Think about it a bit more Frink. I’m not saying that flying in a straight line equates to flying in a trench but why is he flying directly into the beam of this weapon about to fire? He can see parts of his ship are melting and at the rate witnessed you would not expect the ship to survive even reaching the weapon, yet he doesn’t move out of the beam to fly alongside it and still aim to crash into the centre of the weapon. He’s not weaving at all to avoid enemy fire from the walkers or TIEs (which is oddly and conveniently missing at this stage). For some odd reason he’s locked into this straight path directly towards the opening of the weapon, much like the exhaust port on the Death Star, so for all intensive purposes he might as well be traveling down a trench.

Totally unrealistic and lacking in sense? Absolutely. If the nearly impenetrable door is being melted hundreds of meters away, it is total idiocy to be in the beam for a long period of time close up. But I chalk that up to dramatic effect.

While it is possible they had the DS trench in mind, it is also possible they did not. There’s really nothing to argue except that it is possible. I think it is very different, and more akin to Randy Quaid flying into a spaceship or the Hulk flying into a portal. It’s a trope we see in many different movies.

Thank you Collipso :}

And good thoughts one69chev. Can’t be 100% sure he saw it, although the site would indicate new mail and they would email him that he has a message. I tell myself it’s funny that I care. I don’t really know what I expect but I have this need to know. I could find an alternative means of messaging him, but seems most proper to go through the site.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.

I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.

That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.

If Kamala is the smartest person in the room, I view that as a big plus. I want the President to be the smartest in the room.

Depends who else is in the room.

?

Elizabeth Warren is sharp.

I don’t think smartness is enough anyway, as smart people can be dishonest, corrupt, and shrill. But there are plenty of intelligent people.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The reason lack of political experience is only a giant red flag and not a disqualification is delegation. The President does not need to know how to do everything – they only need to be smart enough to know who knows how to do things, and delegate accordingly. I’d be fine with an amateur pitching in the Word Series if they could delegate the pitching duties to someone else, as long as I trusted their judgment about who that person might be.

That said, it’s still a giant red flag. I’m not excited about the prospect.

The Presidency is more than just delegation of duties.

Which is exactly why it’s a giant red flag if a candidate has no political experience.

As said on a conservative blog:

More than anything, what sustains him is the sense — true or not — that he’s outsourced his actual duties to more responsible actors. Ryan and McConnell write the bills; Mattis, McMaster, Kelly and the generals coordinate foreign policy. Occasionally POTUS pops up to say something provocative about North Korea or NATO’s obsolescence or a trade war with China but mostly he seems consumed with live-tweeting Fox News and settling grudges.

Can can’t outsource the final decision on whether a bill gets signed into law or not. He can’t outsource the final decision when comes to military action. He can’t outsource the nuke button.

You can outsource who holds the nuke button, apparently.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

Jeebus said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

I’m just curious, other than not being Trump, what qualifications does Oprah have for being President?

Being Oprah.

I agree with Jeebus and CatBus but I think this is a good answer.

What qualifications does Warbler have for being President?

Being Warbler.

What qualifications does Frink have for being President?

Being Frink.

What qualifications does Mrebo have for being President?

Being Mrebo.

😦

I’m pretty sure both yhwx and Mrebo were joking, though.

Yhwx

It’s lowercase.

The rules grammar indicate that the first letter of someone’s name be capitalized.

It’s not a proper first name. It’s an online username.

There’s also Also e e cummings.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

I will have to do some research on this Kamala Harris.

I think the road for her was (ominously) mapped out by Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. She is on many occasions doomed to be the smartest person in the room. Gore tripped over that by seeming too eager to crush his neophyte opponent in a debate. Clinton (I felt) successfully managed to walk the line between being strong and knowledgeable without showing any drive to kneecap her opponent just because he didn’t know how to defend himself, preferring to let him hang himself instead.

That’s the trap of an Oprah candidacy IMO. If Kamala does anything that seems mean to Oprah, it’s over. She’s got to get that tough but fair balance just right.

If Kamala is the smartest person in the room, I view that as a big plus. I want the President to be the smartest in the room.

Depends who else is in the room.

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

The reason lack of political experience is only a giant red flag and not a disqualification is delegation. The President does not need to know how to do everything – they only need to be smart enough to know who knows how to do things, and delegate accordingly. I’d be fine with an amateur pitching in the Word Series if they could delegate the pitching duties to someone else, as long as I trusted their judgment about who that person might be.

That said, it’s still a giant red flag. I’m not excited about the prospect.

The Presidency is more than just delegation of duties.

Which is exactly why it’s a giant red flag if a candidate has no political experience.

As said on a conservative blog:

More than anything, what sustains him is the sense — true or not — that he’s outsourced his actual duties to more responsible actors. Ryan and McConnell write the bills; Mattis, McMaster, Kelly and the generals coordinate foreign policy. Occasionally POTUS pops up to say something provocative about North Korea or NATO’s obsolescence or a trade war with China but mostly he seems consumed with live-tweeting Fox News and settling grudges.

deleted!

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

I’m just curious, other than not being Trump, what qualifications does Oprah have for being President?

Being Oprah.

I agree with Jeebus and CatBus but I think this is a good answer.

It is not answer at all.

What qualifications does Warbler have for being President?

Being Warbler.

What qualifications does Frink have for being President?

Being Frink.

What qualifications does Mrebo have for being President?

Being Mrebo.

See?

Given that Trump was elected, more or less*, for being Trump, I think “Being Warbler” is a perfectly acceptable answer.

*I may have placed that clause in the wrong place.

It’s been years since I’ve read The Thrawn Trilogy. I remember liking it. The nice thing about the books is that even if they were formally “canon” they never had the same statute and recognition as the films.

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

I’m just curious, other than not being Trump, what qualifications does Oprah have for being President?

Being Oprah.

I agree with Jeebus and CatBus but I think this is a good answer.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

With Trump in office, I keep hoping liberals will see the danger of consolidation and expansion of federal power. Some wonder if marijuana could be the gateway drug to federalism.

If Federalism’s most notable appeal is that it can throw a wrench in the gears when the Federal Government opts to do spectacularly bad things, the argument is already lost IMO. Because, among other things, who can throw a wrench into the gears when states opt to do spectacularly bad things? Whoever gets primacy gets the ability to screw people over, any good anarchist could tell you that.

That said, liberals AFAIK have never been against Federalism per se, but see the role of the Federal goverment fundamentally differently than conservatives. There’s plenty of good stuff in Federalism, liberals just hate most of the things conservatives love about it, and vice-versa.

I think Federalism’s biggest appeal is that decisions are being made closest to home. Of course, this isn’t a purely either/or choice where anarchy can get a foothold. Our Constitution imposes limitations on the states and grants broad powers the the federal government.

Some may be happy with the current balance but the clear trend is toward consolidation and expansion of federal power. Some think we should keep going in that direction, and quickly! There is a conviction that history will continue on an arc they like. And there is a belief that the federal government is capable of doing things better than the states. The fact that there are 50 not wholly independent states (each composed of liberal and conservative dominated areas) all exerting influence on each other, that can itself mitigate bad things and create good models for other states to adopt.

So when California wants to be a “Sanctuary” for immigrants or New York wants to implement stricter gun control or Colorado wants pot to be legal, they can do those things. And if Alabama wants to turn people here illegally over to the Feds, allow open carry of guns, and keep laws against drugs, let that happen too. That’s almost where we are right now. And yet, many people think we should/must adopt a uniform law on these matters.

Whether these are spectacularly good or bad policies is in the eye of the beholder, but there’s something to be said for giving the leeway for different policies to exist, and to maintain obstacles to consolidation of power.

With Trump in office, I keep hoping liberals will see the danger of consolidation and expansion of federal power. Some wonder if marijuana could be the gateway drug to federalism.

CatBus said:

CatBus said:

The collusion starts paying off.

EDIT: Hey, that may be the only time I’ve ever linked to the National Review, so get your ideologically conservative news served up by CatBus while the limited-time offer stands.

Speaking of the conservative news slant – twice within the period of one year I have linked to the National Review now.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455035/new-york-city-stop-and-frisk-crime-decline-conservatives-wrong

Could the National Review be heading in the direction of “self-defined conservative news outlet with actual editorial standards and some degree of credibility” to join the Wall Street Journal in that lonely group? A few more fact-based analyses and I might have to check with them more often. It’s a crazy world we live in where the National Review of all places changes their opinions to fit the facts rather than the other way around.

Maybe. A conservative blog I visit has been hating on NR as a liberal rag for the last year.

Mithrandir, those are excellent observations. And not only was TLJ constrained by TFA in unfortunate ways but TFA colors how TLJ is perceived. I think that is inevitable but it does make the the creator’s hand all the more visible and the similarities all the more glaring in TLJ. Like you, I can’t ignore that. There are the separate question of whether Johnson’s intent was always well executed and whether there weren’t some other better alternatives (albeit probably still not satisfying). I think those questions preoccupy most discussions and to many look like nitpicks or nostalgia but are actually referring back to more fundamental objections to the film.

There are also philosophical/ideological objections to TLJ as envisioned by Johnson, which you touched on previously. But that goes beyond whether the film is good or bad, as you noted. Objecting to the particular views expressed through TLJ they won’t be convincing to anyone who doesn’t already share the same point of view - and most people don’t really care!

I’m old enough to remember it being cool to say ROTJ was bad because DS2 was a rehash. Also it was bad because Han Solo supposedly had poor characterization and should have died. And Ewoks were poor Wookiee cousins included for unfortunate humorous and juvenile appeal. Similar and more extensive objections made now are considered offensive. I don’t understand that.

Seeing the same visuals and story beats so deliberately performed takes away from a feeling that this is an authentic world. Superficial similarities are inevitable. We can talk about the Hero’s Journey or whatever but of course stories are going to have some manner of similarities. Those seemingly coincidental similarities are not the focus. If one likes that we are seeing the same story beats and the same visuals (with twists), that’s a personal choice. But it is pretty obvious where OT is being repurposed in a fairly methodical way and that won’t feel natural to many viewers.

I think the story would feel more natural if we saw in real time the breakdown between Luke and Kylo, and Snoke’s influence to turn him. Seeing those relatively recent developments could have been more engaging.

yhwx said:

“Tapper cuts off Trump adviser interview: I’ve wasted enough of my viewers’ time”

https://youtu.be/vU7v5A5P8BM

My S.O. wished the camera would have panned down so that we could see Trump’s arm.

Collipso said:

So I just read something that really made me think, and honestly I agree with pretty much everything. It is as follows:

I think that is a compelling point of view. In a story where you can really go anywhere, do anything, to stick like glue to an undoing of what was done feels hollow. Themes of failure and gray areas can be effectively - I think more effectively - explored without undoing everything.

This may seem silly but I remember being amazed as a child when I realized that the bad guys were actually the government in charge of the galaxy. That’s kind of a big idea when you’re little. War between different governments or war brought on by bad guys against a government are simpler ideas. One can imagine that the new Republic, relatively good as it may be, is not seen as good by everyone. War between the Republic and competing (not simply evil) factions challenges our heroes and ourselves.

Celebrity worship is definitely not a partisan thing. Conservatives decry Hollywood because it is skewed heavily liberal and gets undo attention. So when some celebrity - even third-rate - express a conservative view, it is given the same kind of undo attention. If Kevin Sorbo had a blog where he expressed liberal views, I am positive we would be hearing about how cool that is from liberals. However, I frequent a couple conservative blogs and I don’t recall seeing anything about Sorbo, so his appeal doesn’t seem to be very far-reaching.

Collipso said:

What’s the problem with Rey’s vision of seeing her parents leave in a spaceship? I’m sure that would be extremely traumatic. Why do they have to be important people simply because she saw them leaving? Yes, the way it was setup left the audience wondering who are those people, and if we knew them. But the characters weren’t giving any fucks at all, except for Rey. I don’t see what’s the big deal about it. Simply because we saw them leave, it doesn’t make them more important or less, or changes who they are.

It creates an apparent discrepancy with what Kylo said and so people wonder why. I don’t know why it would matter if other characters care or not. I don’t need a consensus of characters to care about a plot element in order for me to think about it as possibly important. Whether it’s a big deal or not is yet to be seen. I’m not sure who you are arguing with or what about!

I think there is something to that persuasion stuff but I agree with you, NeverarGreat. I think Adams used his own tricks on himself without realizing it. I think some of his ideas as dangerously wrong - like his “Law of Slow-Moving Disasters.”

The creator of Dilbert writes a lot about Trump’s supposed persuasion techniques. I don’t know. It does seem to work great as a distraction.

But we did know about his policies before the election. We heard all about the big wall, about breaking international alliances, repealing Obamacare.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

There are things he has done that I think were good, others were a mixed bag, and some bad. I personally know people who aren’t embarrassingly ignorant nor malevolent that support him. Many of them discount the crazier things he says and/or does.

I’m going to need specific examples of the good things and specific examples of the crazy things they discount.

Like Frink said. Most of the things on that list I gave I would say are good, some I have more mixed/negative feelings on. Pretty much all his outlandish statements are discounted by many supporters. Some just really like heated rhetoric aimed at ‘the enemy.’