Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by downzy

  1. Figured with the U.S. mid-term elections commencing tomorrow, figured I'd start a thread on all things U.S. elections (if you're interested in Presidential elections, we'll see you in two years). Looks like the Senate is going to be handed back to the Republicans after 8 years of Democrat control. I suppose Obama's use of the veto will skyrocket over the next couple of years. If you've been impressed with how unproductive Congress has been since 2010, just wait until you see how little gets done and passed over the next two! And then there's also the state elections. John Oliver covers this pretty well here:
  2. US Politics/Elections Thread

    No, the point being I don't have any more time to continue a discussion over a video I find absurd. You're not going to change my mind since I watched the video and I'm not an idiot. I see what they're to say and I just don't agree. I think they're either missing the point completely or reaching to fill time (common for podcasts run by amateurs and non-professionals). It's just one big waste of everyones time. No need to write 1000 words or for me to read it. I'm not interested.
  3. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Honestly, and I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't have time to read all of this.
  4. US Politics/Elections Thread

    I did click the link. From what I gathered his articles are focused on sports matters what might expand on more societal issues. Not saying he's not worthwhile or good at what he does. I just don't have time or interest for sports-focused commentary, just as I have less and less time for sports in general. I've got two businesses to run, this site, an 18 month old to look after so the little free time I do have I spend reading authors and reporters with a focus on matters I'm more interested in. I do appreciate the recommendation.
  5. US Politics/Elections Thread

    The podcast is simply her show. The issue I have with podcasts is that they generally run unstructured and lack format. Not saying all, but to suggest her actual show, whether one consumes it directly through television or via the rebranded "podcast," is akin to the podcast you linked above is absurd. I'm not talking about content. She does do some long form stuff, particularly in the A block that can run 20+ minutes before a commercial break. But again, from a structural standpoint, I'd take someone like Maddow all day long over the whatever podcast you posted above where hosts spout nonsense for the sake of spouting nonsense. I did listen to the first half but again, don't have time to waste on people who think they can just meander through a point rather than getting right to it. If that was suppose to be humorous then good lord than my sense of humour is very different than theirs. It would appear it doesn't seem so basic since the hosts seem to miss the main argument and feel compelled to latch on to something completely else. They are criticizing Maddow's caveat and misconstruing it as some sort of complicit approval of Bolton himself. Again, what's the point of all of this? To me, it's just an utter waste of time.
  6. US Politics/Elections Thread

    And that's my issue. I think many people view Rogan as something more than just a casual conversation. In my opinion if Rogan is going to have to people like Shapiro, Jones, and Peterson on, he needs to do a better job at pushing back at some of their more preposterous positions. He doesn't need to make it his mission to invalidate them, but from what I've seen/heard so far, he doesn't do nearly enough to challenge these guys who hold some dangerous positions.
  7. US Politics/Elections Thread

    People ask me if I listen to podcasts and this is a pretty good example of why I don't (save for the very good Appetite for Distortion, of course).... They just meander and drone on about topics for the sake of droning on about topics. Since there's no limit on time, there's no need to self-edit and all the minutia is aired in full. In any event, I find these "podcasts" strange in that they accuse others of focusing on something narrow while missing the point of the entire piece. Anyone who knows anything about Maddow knows she's taken people like Bolton to task time and time again for what happened with Iraq. It's not even debatable. Whether you agree with her positions or not, she's been pretty consistent on her distaste for those responsible for Iraq and those who would unjustifiably put America into war. The point she's trying to make isn't about Bolton. It's not about Russia. It's about Trump's repeated instances of undermining his own cabinet and officials. Bolton goes out and says one thing, Trump says another to completely cut him off. Her focus is on the unprofessionalism of the Trump presidency; that he continually sells out his own officials; that the administration is never on the same page. That's the point she's making, and hence why she makes the caveat that she's not concerned about how one views Bolton. But I guess people with podcasts who don't structure their shows need to fill time to keep people listening. As I said before, there's a lot to knock Maddow about. Her faith and certainty in the Mueller report and Trump's absolute guilt led her to a place that undermined her credibility. She got way ahead of that story and has since had a difficult time acknowledging that she resorted to almost conspiratorial nonsense to support her certainty in Trump's guilty and Mueller's mission. So I'm not here saying that Maddow isn't without faults and isn't above criticisms. But these people trying to make a name for themselves with podcasts need to adjust their sights a bit.
  8. US Politics/Elections Thread

    I find Rogan a waste of time and extremely overrated. What's the point of having a guest on for two plus hours if you don't bother asking them a worthwhile question that challenges their core concepts? Rogan, to me, is a bit of a dangerous platform in that he gives voice to some of the more fanatical voices in American society and provides zero pushback. I wish he took his job seriously or went back to UFC commentary. As I get older I pay less and less attention to sports, hence I hardly ever read sports commentators. Does he speak to more than just sports?
  9. The Unsullied left because they got an agreement that they felt gave them justice for Dany. Jon stayed North because that's what he ultimately wanted, unbeknownst to Greyworm.
  10. Again, i don't get the issue with the way they constructed this outcome. The Unsullied controlled King's Landing and had imprisoned Jon. The North wanted him returned and were willing to wage war over it. A compromise was agreed to. This was covered in the discussion between Greyworm and the heads for each region.
  11. I don't know, feels like we were watching different shows. Read my previous post. I don't think it was a punishment at all and something Bran knew Jon would probably want anyway. As for Dany turning heel, I don't see it like others. I thought her character was pretty consistent throughout. It might be a stretch for her to burn down Kings Landing with all its citizens and put that on Cersei for using them as human shields, but her final speech to Jon rang true to me. It was her line about how others don't get a choice that prompted Jon to take her out. That didn't feel like a contradiction in her character but something that had been there all along.
  12. I thought Tyrion explained it was a compromise between Bran and Greyworm. I don't believe it was something Bran "sentenced" per se but was the result of a negotiated compromise to give the Unsullied some form of justice for the death of their queen and to allow Jon to live. As for the Dothraki, they haven't had a leader or a character of substance for a couple of seasons. I think it's pretty much assumed that Greyworm speaks for all of Dany's forces, particularly after she gave him the title of War Commander. Not sure how Jon would have killed Greyworm considering Greyworm would have been surrounded by his fellow soldiers.
  13. Is this clear in the show? I thought Bran said his vision of the future are mostly shadows; that he can't see much. They keep much of his abilities vague in this respect. I would assume that most of the people who voted for Bran knew he was a stark and were aware, at least in part, of the story that Tyrion told. Most of the other houses and families had been destroyed, hence I'm not sure how many other viable choices they had. Jon might have been one had Greyworm not been so opposed. I read recently that the first chapter of the first book is told from Bran's perspective. So GRRM likely ends with Bran on the throne for the sake of symmetry and a call back to how the first book starts. Again, I think a lot of issues with this and the last season is the choice to reduce the number of episodes per season and not add a ninth season. With only so many hours they went with the bullet point version of the show. If you can get past that decision, it was a fun ride and they did a good job with it all things considered.
  14. Is it clear that he didn't want to go North? I know Sansa apologized for the decision, but I don't believe Jon ever really objected to his "sentence." Maybe I'm wrong. Plus it was nice to see Jon greet Ghost since he gave him the cold shoulder in ep. 4.
  15. See, I liked the idea of Jon ending up in the North. It's what he always wanted and it was nice to see his character end where he began. I didn't really expect Drogon to burn Jon since he's a Targaryan, and I assumed that dragons don't burn members of this family. So not that big of a reach for Drogon to spare Jon. Plus it was nice to see Jon continue to question afterward whether he made the right call. To each their own, but I thought the end hit the right notes for the characters we had been following for eight years. It ended mostly on a positive note (save for the citizens of Kings Landing) and I'm happy for it.
  16. Since the show is now done, no need to use spoiler tags. Title of thread has been changed to reflect this fact.
  17. I honestly thought it was as good as they could have made it with the limit of six episodes. I found the season still very entertaining, so long as you didn't take things too seriously. The show has become a victim of sorts to its earlier successes. Once they decided to finish the story in 13 episodes it became evident this was going to be the bullet point version of Martin's grand narrative. The issue really for me is that the eight season should have been split into two separate season. Part of the reason Jon killing Dany doesn't really have the emotional effect it should have is we spend very little time with them together. Their relationship is kind of pigeon holed into seven episodes, one of which aired a year and a half before the final six. So we don't have much invested in them (nor does it help that there was little chemistry between the two actors). But I would be shocked if the broad strokes aren't taken from Martin's outlines he submitted to D&D when they moved past the books. I think the grand narrative in the books will be similar, but will provide the level of detail and context that was lacking due to the decision to shorten the final two episodes to 13. You're probably right. The other issue with Bran wargging into Drogon is that it raises the question as to why he didn't do it earlier. The concept came to me when at the end Bran suggested he could likely track Drogon down. Anyway...
  18. Anyone else wonder if it was Bran who warged into Drogon to melt the Iron Throne? Probably not but would make a bit more sense than Drogon somehow associating the throne with any kind of status worth melting. Unless dragons in Westeros are much smarter than I give them credit for.
  19. Difficult to wrap up a show like this, especially one that's based on a story that hasn't been written yet. Wish the first half the season was its own season with the last three episodes expanded into the final season. That said, still the best television show on television for what it is. Fifteen or twenty years ago it would be impossible to imagine a show like this existing on a scale similar to the one created. So congrats to HBO and those involved in creating something that was truly groundbreaking. Wasn't perfect, but still worth the ride.
  20. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Well said. As bad as Trump is, I'm not sure he's reached Nixon-level evil yet (well, that we know of). Nixon has the blood of millions on his hands for sabotaging the Paris Peace Accords that would have ended the Vietnam War in 1968. But Nixon wanted to become President so he undermined legitimate efforts to bring the war to a close, resulting in the further deaths of millions in Vietnam and later Cambodia.
  21. RIP Grumpy cat

    Grumpy Cat Christmas was the first book I bought for my daughter ten hours after she was born. They had them for sale at checkout at the drug store inside the hospital. She was a funny little cat, for sure. Likely made her owners a ton of money.
  22. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Is there any new interventions occurring during the Trump Presidency that I'm not aware of? So in your mind, the lack of focus by Maddow on interventions that haven't happened yet (and likely won't happen) is somehow evidence of her complicit support of said interventions? Again, that's some warped and twisted logic you're employing here. Sorry, I've produced nothing? What about the link to the video where she laments the possible buildup of 120k ground forces to invade Iran? How about her ridicule of Trump's bombing of Syria. Again, you're not discussing in good faith and have continually ignored points made that are inconvenient to your original erroneous position.
  23. US Politics/Elections Thread

    Yeah, I get that you've stated that Maddow has done a 180 on in foreign intervention, you just haven't provided anything that supports that point. Carlson might be more forceful (guess he has to make up for being wrong several times over), but that doesn't translate into Maddow being a shrill for foreign interventions. Again, that's some warped logic you're employing here. Your original post was, "Video of an actual leftist schooling a neoliberal on foreign policy." There was nothing in the video that supports your contention that Maddow is now an advocate for foreign interventions. None. And nothing you have posted since has demonstrated that fact. Just admit you were wrong (or stop responding with revisionist nonsense) and let's move on.
  24. US Politics/Elections Thread

    But isn't this true of almost any journalist or news outlet to a certain extent? Which news organization out there really tell the full story and is that even possible from one source? I'm not stating that cable news outlets or corporately owned broadcast companies don't have agendas or provided limited reporting when they bother to report on a subject at all. But I also don't think blanket cynicism is warranted or justified either. CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post do have their merits with respect to informing their audiences. They provide sample-sized news bites for those who can't be bothered or don't have the time or resources to ingest a five course equivalent reporting. Their coverage shouldn't be immediately discounted simply because they are corporately owned.
  25. US Politics/Elections Thread

    You first post a video where the commentator argues Maddow is in an agreement with Bolton regarding interventionism. When it's pointed out to you that the video gets its facts wrong, you change gears and make the argument about Maddow never condemning interventionism in the age of Trump (which is kind of a silly point since there hasn't been much movement on this front since Trump took office, other than his bombings in Syria, which Maddow ridiculed at the time). Okay, fine. So then i point to a video of Maddow taking issue with Trump's plans for a 120k force to take on Iran, invalidating your second contention that Maddow is now somehow aligned with interventionists. This is to say nothing of the fact that neither you or I watch Maddow nightly and can't state with any certainty that her program hasn't addressed the matter more frequently or boldly. Now your argument is that she's sitting on the fence regarding intervention in Venezuela (despite the fact there doesn't appear to be any threat of that at present) and that her criticism of Iran are more process oriented (which is kind of ironic since this was her main contention in the first video you posted). Again, this is miles away from your original post and contention, that Maddow is supportive of interventionist figures and interventionism in general. Nevermind Maddow wrote an actual book that chronicled and criticized America's military mission creep and its tendency to increasingly involve itself through military force. I also assume you're not familiar with her documentary Hubris, in which she took the Bush administration to task over the Iraq War. But sure, keep believing someone like Maddow is in lockstep with interventionists despite her track record of speaking on the subject for the sake of championing ultra-hack Carlson. And if Carlson has rebranded himself as an anti-interventionist (since, you know, he was in lockstep agreement with the Bush administration at the beginning of the Iraq war and then made the same criticism Trump made that the war should have been fought over oil), where are his criticisms of Trump for keeping forces in Syria and Afghanistan? But let's you and I continue to waste our time because you thought you were making a valid point with a video that was just flat out wrong.