Search options (Page 13 of 58)

Don't get me wrong - I don't remember enough about TOS to really care whether or not they break continuity.  I get that continuity, especially in that era, is fragile.  And I really don't care enough about any of it to really get bothered.

What makes me a little crazy is that *they seem to care*.  By choosing to do a prequel, the writers/producers/creators care about the continuity.  Otherwise, why do a prequel at all?  For a mainstream movie like Star Trek 09, maybe you do a full reboot with a new cast because you want to reach the right audience.  And you pick the characters that have the most cultural footprint - some random person in Wisconsin or South Carolina is going to know Captain Kirk before they know Captain Janeway or Captain Sisko.  So you pick the most famous characters and hope to get the biggest audience.

But as we've discussed before, there's no reason to do Discovery in the pre-TOS era except for the fact that they wanted to borrow some of the credibility that comes with Spock and that specific era.  But they didn't even really want to do that (maybe Brian Fuller did) because they had new uniforms, new sets, new Klingons.  They were distancing themselves from that era, and they eventually just abandoned that idea anyway.

Strange New Worlds made a similar decision.  I don't know if the Enterprise crew was put on Discovery as a backdoor pilot to a new show, but you gotta think that was part of the decision.  But instead of taking a great cast and making a new show in a new era, they decided to do another prequel.  And this one lent itself to being a prequel with the same uniforms and some of the same storylines.  So they have to care about the continuity because why else wouldn't they just do something new.  They like this era, they like the uniforms and they like the characters.

And when you do a prequel, you're choosing to live dangerously.  When Picard decided to do a follow-up, they can do whatever they want.  They could make Picard a father or bring back the Enterprise D or have Q fight the Borg Queen.  It's all new so it doesn't matter.  If they'd decided to say that Picard was a father for the entirety of TNG and just never mentioned it...that's an issue.

Because, to me, the point of the a prequel is to flesh out the stories that have already been told.  You learn about Anakin and Obi-Wan's friendship and it colors the way they talk about each other in A New Hope.  It isn't perfect and maybe the story sucks but that's the whole point of the prequels - to flesh out the story.

If you're just telling new stories in an existing timeline, it's like going back in time.  If you're not super careful, you're going to change something.  It's just too dangerous.

If I ran Trek, I'd make the executive decision that no prequels.  If you go back in time, it looks like the 60s in the TOS era and the 80s/90s in the TNG era.  That's just how it looked.  If you want things to look better, tell a story set in the future.  The model was perfect when TNG jumped forward a century.  Things look better because technology got better.  End of story.

Strange New Worlds is way better than Discovery, and I'm willing to forgive any continuity errors.  I just don't like the idea of retreading if there's no narrative reason to do that.  Strange New Worlds in the 26th century is still a great show.

I liked the finale.  Very tense.

I will need our Trek historian ireactions to help me understand if we're screwing up continuity too much with this much interaction with the Gorn.  My limited understanding was that Starfleet hadn't really seen the Gorn until Kirk and that the Federation hadn't really interacted with them a ton.

I also struggle to see how this species became technologically advanced, but maybe I'm just not being creative enough.

Trump's money problems are going to be a problem.  I think the GOP would love for someone to step up, but DeSantis was probably that guy and he has so far really screwed up.  I'm interested to see how the debates go.  Trump might look like a wuss if he doesn't debate, and he might get his ass kicked if he does debate. 

The problem with both parties is that neither really has a strong backup.  Who's going to win the GOP if not Trump or DeSantis?  The field is weak.  Same with the Democrats.  If Biden were to drop out for whatever reason, Harris would be a pretty rough nominee.  Mayor Pete isn't super strong and I think it's the wrong time to risk a LGBT candidate.  Newsom has issues.  Whitmer might struggle.  I think Warnock would be nice but you'd risk losing the Senate.  Both parties need new blood.

*******

And I agree with your assessment.  I don't think Trump has the votes in the general election.  But it is absolutely ridiculous that a man under two federal indictments is this close to being able to win the presidency and pardon himself.

Trump indicted again.

My question is...since these indictments only matter depending on whether or not he wins the election, are more indictments helpful or hurtful to Trump's election chances?  Obviously hardcore Republicans won't care and hardcore Democrats weren't going to vote for him anyway.  But what about non-MAGA Republicans or true independents?  Does adding another indictment to the pile make him less electable or does it add to the idea that this is all a political witch hunt?

I haven't read the Shatnerverse novels, but I love the way they resurrected Kirk.  I would love to see him resurrected in some way and get a proper sendoff.

Hopefully another show is greenlighted.  I know SNW and Lower Decks will continue and they're working on a Section 31 film, but that's the only Trek that's coming once Discovery ends, right?

To be fair, Kirk later admits that he is wasting time so that his timeline still comes to path.  He thinks that distracting Singh and not doing anything will preserve his own timeline.

Well, Kirk does destroy a bunch of people in chess for money and then brag about it later.

*****

Of course, I've only seen TOS once and long ago so I'll defer to you.  But one explanation I've read for the difference is that Kirk hasn't yet experienced the tragedy on the Farragut.  I assume this is a good reason even though I have no idea what Kirk would've experienced on the Farragut or why that would make him act more like the way you'd expect him to act.

Yeah, I'm not trying to convince you.  I'm just saying I wrote it off as a baby's show, and it really wasn't that.  If it was a fully-realized show like Rebels or Clone Wars, I would probably try harder.  But it's 20 episodes with an uncertain future - it probably isn't worth your time at this point.

Yeah and next week is a musical.  I loved the crossover and loved the Klingon episode, but they were such drastically different tones that it was a bit shocking.  And since they aired the crossover early, they aired within days of each other!

I'm not saying it was bad, but it definitely gave me thematic whiplash.

No spoilers, but airing 2x08 in between 2x07 and 2x09 is....a choice.

Yeah, I have just been thinking that there has been 8 years where Democrats could have been talking to Trump voters and finding some sort of workable compromise.  And instead of antagonizing them, I wonder if listening to (some of) them might've ended this threat instead of keeping it alive.

And, again, to be clear, I'm not talking about listening to the white nationalists or the insurrectionists or the Matt Gaetzs or Jim Jordans or Rand Pauls or MTG or Boebert or Trump himself.  Those people aren't interested in improving the nation by working together.  But that's not 70 million people.  I think Biden could've tried town halls in red states (or, for his protection, pink or purple states) with Trump voters to listen to their concerns.  Air it on Fox News and reach more Trump voters.

Then Biden should've gone back to his braintrust and Pelosi and Schumer and put together a list that was acceptable.  Work on the stuff I mentioned or do whatever made sense.

And this wouldn't even be about growing the Democratic Party.  It would simply be about eroding confidence in Trump.  Because I know there are Republicans that don't like Trump but still vote for him.  I don't know them personally, but I live in Texas - I know of them secondhand.  And if we could get to "well I don't like most of Biden's politics, but he seems like he's working on some of the things I care about and I really don't like Trump" with just a small percentage of Trump's 2020 voters then Trump has almost no shot of winning and the threat of Trump is neutralized.

If they'd just done a few things here and there that they could point to, they could've done exactly what they did the rest of Biden's first term and it would've been an enormous success.  Right now, I think they've still done enough but I'm not sure why more effort wasn't made to win over the people that were win-over-able.

I want to have a brief discussion on a topic that could get a bit controversial so I want ireactions ready to blow this out of the sky if necessary.

I think most middle or left-leaning people acknowledge that Trump and his movement are the most dangerous threats to democracy.  I think most people would also agree that the Democrats haven't done enough to a) hurt Trump, either politically or legally or b) bolster their own support enough that 2024 is a lock.

And something that's always bothered me is that I don't think 70 million people are fascist or racist or want America to go down a dark path.  I think a majority of those 70 million are upset about something much smaller and want someone to listen to their concerns.  And Donald Trump, for whatever reason, shows up as someone who is listening to their concerns.

Biden sold himself as an aisle-crosser in his 2020 campaign, and he has passed a lot of legislation that is at least partly bi-partisan.  But Democrats have still been pretty adversarial against Republicans, Trump, and MAGA.  And as the two forces appear to be colliding again in 2024, I have to ask myself...was that the wisest strategy?

I think America does need a uniter.  And I think Biden wants to do that, but I think Democrats are still playing like its 2015.  We saw a huge movement elect a monster into the White House.  Shouldn't the Democrats' top priority to figure out why and do something about that?  Maybe seek out the people that are so angry and listen to them?  Because I have to believe that a lot of them are reasonable and have reasonable (at least to them) concerns.  If the Democrats suddenly started listening, wouldn't that achieve some of the healing that Biden seems to want?

Here are some rough examples:

- The border.  This is a huge one and one that comes up whenever a Democrat is in office.  Biden immediately stopped progress on the infamous wall and tried to return to Obama-level treatment at the border.  A softer, gentler, more friendly face at the border.  But should this have been a better area of compromise?  Should they have had a more united front on the border, an obvious area of weakness?  Obviously I'm not talking about any sort of immigration ban or abuse.  But cosmetic changes at the border.  Maybe find some sort of compromise that allows the wall to be finished without wasting too much money.  Take Republican concerns into account and find a compromise.  If Republicans start seeing progress at the border run by Democrats, it takes a huge weapon out of Trump's 2024 arsenal.

- China.  One place that Republicans and Democrats agree is that China is a threat.  Should Biden have joined with Republicans to have a stronger front on China?  Especially considering the fact that they knew the Republicans would attack Biden on being soft on China.  Biden needed to separate from Trump on NATO and Ukraine, but China seems like an easy win.

- Hunter Biden.  Biden knew that his DOJ would be taking on Trump.  He had to have known the optics of that.  The Hunter Biden charges are baseless but they appear serious and are important to Republicans.  So should they have made the investigations into Hunter Biden more public?  More of a spectacle?  Do their best to get to the bottom of it?  It would be hard for Republicans to accuse Biden of weaponizing the DOJ when he went after his own son with the full weight of the department.  Would it be a waste of time and money?  Sure.  But if they could get everything out there and make it seem like they're uncovering everything they could, it would probably help publicly exonerate Hunter.

Just some ideas.  Obviously stuff like LGBT rights, civil rights, voting rights, etc would need to be off limits.  The White Nationalist side of the party would still need to be attacked and condemned.  But I imagine there are some areas that Biden could've compromised on.  And if they did, instead of fighting MAGA, they might've converted enough of them that the 2024 election would've been a walk in the park.  And some of the former-Democrats that turned MAGA loyalists might've come back to the team.

Am I wrong here?

I love Strange New Worlds.  I think it is fantastic, and I genuinely have enjoyed every episode I've seen.

I hate Star Trek prequels.  I will *always* prefer to move the story forward.  I understand not wanting the past to look ridiculous, but the past will always look ridiculous.  Star Trek was made in the 60s with a limited budget and limited technology.  But that's when it was made and it was the best they could do.  They were also limited by the thoughts and morals of the time.  And I understand wanting to update that and also feature classic characters.

But I would leave the past as the past.  If they want to do a time travel episode, they have to do it the way DS9 did it. If they want to explain differences, they have to do it the same way ("we don't talk about it with outsiders").  The past is the past.

TNG looks outdated.  But Picard didn't gloss over the differences - they called them out.

Now DS9 and Voyager look outdated.  But if you're consistently moving forward, it will always make sense.

I know I'm probably in the minority of this, but I would've loved a 25th Century story with the Strange New Worlds cast.  I would've always set Discovery in the post-Voyager era.  Move things forward.

I agree that re-electing Donald Trump would be catastrophically dangerous.  But I think he's growing more obvious about his true intent, and I think that as his power grows in the Republican primary, his chances of winning the general election decrease.  Note: I've been very wrong about this before

I understand that a percentage of the population will vote for Trump no matter what.  One of the left-leaning YouTube channels found a bunch of people who said they'd vote for him if we was convicted of murder.  But that's not most people.  I have to think that, for lots of Republicans, they're putting up a mental divider between "Donald Trump the man" and "Donald Trump the idea" and they're willing to deal with one to get the other.

And while a lot of these people will be able to write off any indictment as a witch hunt, moderate Republicans and Independents won't.  And Trump not only needs some of these people to vote for him, he needs *a lot* of them to vote for him.  And I gotta think that if Trump has 4 criminal indictments by November 2024, the people who held their nose and voted for Trump won't be able to do it.  Not with the Supreme Court locked up for a generation or so.  Not with the economy going in the right direction and gas at a reasonable (if not slightly higher) price.  Not with inflation on the decline.  They're going to say "what we have is fine - I'm fine with four years of a guy I don't really hate"

Note 2: if the economy tanks or if Biden very seriously shows his age or Harris is the nominee for whatever reason, all of the above gets thrown out

I just can't imagine that 70 million Americans are willing to accept that Trump isn't guilty of *any* of the crimes he's accused of.  Polling shows that even Republicans consider the documents case to be serious.  I don't know if the January 6 stuff has legs, but I think the Georgia one is pretty open and shut.

Trump lost last time.  And I think a) Trump hasn't done anything to win over voters that either didn't vote for him or voted for Biden in 2020 and b) Biden has done enough and the economy has improved enough that Biden voters won't flip.  I think Democrats will be energized enough to vote against Trump even if they're sour on Biden.

Now if the Republicans rally around someone else, I think Biden is extremely vulnerable.  I think virtually any of the other Republicans can beat him.  But if it's Trump vs Biden again, I think Trump has alienated enough of the people that aren't his die-hard base that it would be hard for him to win.

Oh, I agree with this.  DC has been a mess.  WB is absolutely a mess.  But I think James Gunn is one of the few people out there that I would trust to clean up the mess, and I think Gunn is doing the best job he can to clean up the mess.

The problem is that there are many people who have played Batman and Superman.  Recasting those parts are no big deal to mainstream audiences.  Even the Flash can be recast because there are three actors that can legitimately claim to be the Flash. Wonder Woman has two, but for the majority of audiences under 40, there's just one.  For the vast majority of people (sorry to Alan Ritchson and briefly Justin Hartley), there's only been one Aquaman.  And Wonder Woman and Aquaman were the two most financial successes of the DCEU so they probably shouldn't kill the golden geese.

Well, we have our Superman and Lois.

My only comment is that I think Informant would've liked this hire better.  I know he ended up devoted to Cavill (maybe? I forget), but this Superman is American.

Well if the plan is to have a low-key season 4 devoid of CG, that's not really the way to set it up!

I was saddened by what happened with Prodigy, although I'm also still a little unclear on what exactly did happen with Prodigy.  It's cancelled, it's getting pulled off Paramount + (or whatever that's becoming) and season 2 doesn't have a home.  But if Nickelodeon said no and Paramount + said no...what even are the options?  Would Paramount make it cheap enough to go somewhere, or is season 2 of Prodigy a Batgirl situation?

When it was announced, I didn't think Prodigy was for me.  It felt kiddie.  But I heard good things from people I respect, and I gave it a shot.  And while it's geared for kids, I never thought it was kiddie.  It's probably as mature as Star Wars Rebels.  And the stories were interesting and well done.  I hope it finds a home and we get to see season 2.  While I haven't loved everything "new" Trek has done, this is the first major misstep for me.

Nice analysis.  I watched it last night and let me give you my thoughts.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I'm not 100% sure of how I feel about the movie just yet.  Ezra Miller was good in the ways that they played both characters, but one thing has consistently bothered me.  Is Barry autistic?  I know he certainly seems to be on the spectrum, but are the writers simply unwilling to admit this?  Is Barry 2 also autistic but just not as outwardly obvious?  Or is that just because I'm fairly uneducated on this topic and it's obvious in both iterations?

It doesn't really matter, I suppose.  People on the spectrum don't have to advertise that they're on the spectrum, but I'm just a little surprised that it just hasn't ever been addressed at all.

One thing I did like is that Barry's personality is so different.  I think I experienced this myself - my father died at a young age, and my personality shifted significantly when it happened.  I used to be a loud (and pretty obnoxious) kid who was very outgoing and popular.  Afterwards, I became a more reserved, quiet, somewhat-reclusive kid.  Still the same person - just too wounded to be outgoing anymore.  I could see if there was a SQ21 movie, I might go back and keep my dad from dying and I'd have a much different personality.

From trailers and promotional leaks, I knew that Barry 2 was going to go bad somehow.  But we were two hours in and I didn't really want that to happen.  I liked Barry 2, and I didn't want to see him turn heel.  I thought "dark Flash" was a reasonable turn of events.  Barry has these new powers and has convinced himself that he can use them to do whatever he needs to do.  After not caring, he's invested himself in this scenario, and he's willing to do what it takes now.

Can Barry in the comics fight an army of kryptonians?  I know he's going out of his way to use his powers as effectively as possible and the kryptonians don't have any reason to suspect they're in any danger from any of the humans.  And when people are aware of him (the Space Giant, Zod, etc), it's usually a harder fight.  I'm basically the worst person to ask about physics, but even at super speed, wouldn't Barry punching a Kryptonian break his hand?

I thought the emotional climax was strong, and I think Miller handled it well.  I think Barry makes an irresponsible decision at the beginning, even after Batman tells him not to, and I think he ends up paying for it.  What was strange to me is that we never find out who actually killed Barry's mom.  I assumed it would be Dark Flash, but it seems to have been a random encounter?  Did the intruder only enter Barry's house because Henry left?  Did they simply enter a different house when Henry didn't leave?

I thought the opening scene was *bizarre* - I really don't understand what was supposed to be happening.  First off, that scenario was tailor-made for Barry.  I don't know why Alfred would've called Diana first.  Superman could've saved the building, but Diana couldn't have saved any of those children.  And having a bunch of babies falling out of a building was sorta insane to me.  I understand that they did it to show Barry's incredible speed and his quick thinking, but how was that the idea they went with?  And as much fun as it was to have Batman flying around in his blue suit (and it was super fun), I don't really understand what Batman was doing in there in the first place.  Barry could've done everything himself.

If it was me, I would've re-written most of that.  I'd give Barry a problem that only he could solve (being two places at once, essentially), and I would've had Batman fight Deathstroke or something.  Bring back a villain we'll *NEVER* see again, basically give Affleck a portion of his solo movie, and showcase Barry's powers.  Don't give us a nameless villain (Falcone's son?) and a meaningless chase.

Also did Affleck seem off as Bruce?  I don't know if he looked overly thin, but he looked off to me (both when he was in the suit and when he wasn't) and his voice seemed weird when he was just Bruce.  I know Affleck's been fighting demons, but I wasn't sure if that was why.

And I suppose Zack Snyder's Justice League isn't canon?  Because Barry went back in time for that, and everything was fine.

The cameo barrage was fun, but I felt like they really held back on it.  The only one that was really "fun" was the Nicholas Cage Superman (and that was very fun).  The rest were deepfakes or just archival videos.  Where was Bale Batman (or Joseph Gordon-Levitt Batman) fighting a Nolanverse Riddler or Penguin?  Where was Ryan Reynolds fighting Mark Strong's Sinestro?  Bring back Shaq as Steel!  Bring back Brendan Routh!  Bring back Tom Welling! 

I was also disappointed because we essentially had this same scene on Titans, and I think Titans did a better job with it.  But the Cage cameo was worth the price of admission.

Now the ending.  For an ending that was re-shot specifically after Gunn took over, I'm a bit baffled by it.  I assume I know the answer to this....Barry left the DCEU universe and ended up in this alternate DCEU universe with Clooney as Batman.  Aquaman 2 can take place either in this alternate universe or the original one - since Barry won't appear in that (I assume), then it doesn't really matter which.  And since Barry won't return at all, I assume, we're either going to get a brand new Flash in a brand new universe or we're going to get Ezra Miller as a new version of Barry.  Either way, the DCEU universe is gone and this new universe will either end right here or with Aquaman 2 (Blue Beetle pending)?

Which is baffling to me.  What's the point of a story like this if *that* is how the story ends?  The story has a nice emotional ending, but I'm shocked they didn't do some kind of post-credit scene where they show one of those colored globes being generated and have a new Superman pod landing.  "Superman will return in Superman: Legacy" some black text says.

Because, if anything, the DC landscape makes less sense after Flash than it did before.  We have a DCEU universe (with no Barry because he left), we have this new hybrid universe with DCEU Barry and George Clooney, and we have whatever Gunn is working on.  And it's either going to be left completely unspoken or they're going to have to shoehorn in an explanation. 

The weirdest thing about it to me is that Cyborg is referenced but doesn't appear.  Affleck appears.  Irons appears.  Gadot appears.  Cavill appears...sort of.  Mamoa appears.  That's the entire Justice League minus Cyborg.  I know Ray Fisher was fighting with WB, but didn't he return to film stuff for Zach Snyder's Justice League?

It was fun to see Keaton again (that's basically why I went to see it).  He was good.  Sorta like in No Way Home, I wish we'd spent more time with him to fill in some gaps.  We get to see the Joker laugh bag from Batman 89 and we get the Batmobile, but that's basically it.  Did he quit being Batman because he cleaned up Gotham?  Did something else happen?  Did he just retire?  Did he ever have a Bat-Family?

But it is weird that they did this Flashpoint story and didn't just go with the actual story.  I assume they would've if the Flash movie had been made as originally planned.  That's why they had Jeffrey Dean Morgan play Thomas Wayne instead of just some extra.  Batman being Thomas Wayne makes a lot more sense thematically.  But I can see why they went with Keaton, who is a better draw and probably better for story.

All in all, I think it was a solid movie.  A lot of fun.  Good performances.  As a movie in a vacuum, I think I liked a lot of it.  As a part of the DCEU or the DCU, it is a bit maddening, but I assume there's going to be a lot of that until Superman Legacy comes out.

I read that the actor that plays General Lane has already been told he's not coming back.  If the budget cuts are severe enough, I don't know if it really benefits the show to come back.  I'd almost rather bring it back for a "special event" - a small handful of episodes that would finish the story.  Maybe the "Superman" effects are really easy to do now for cheap, but the show has been really good in terms of making Superman look and feel real.  If they're going to scale that back that it looks cheap, I'd almost rather it not come back at all.

Maybe they can do 10 episodes that still look good.  I hope so.

If not, here's how I'd pitch it in the writers room:

IDEA ONE - Kandor.  I'd bring the whole family (no Lana, no Lana's family, no other cast) into the bottle city of Kandor.  I don't know if it'd be cheaper to film on an alien-looking set, but Clark wouldn't have any powers and they could explore some of Clark's Krypton side.  Let them out in the finale to wrap up the Smallville storylines, but you'd reduce the cast and take superpowers out of it.

IDEA TWO - Clark is permanently depowered.  Maybe use gold kryptonite.  Maybe use Mister Mxyzptlk.  Make something up.  Doesn't really matter.  Take away his powers (and I guess Jordan loses his powers too) and essentially make this Clark's retirement story.  Jordan has to deal with the fact that he's back to being a normal teenager again (and maybe Jonthan enjoys it a little too much) and Clark has to deal with the fact that he's not Superman anymore.  You could have the main villain of the story be just the concept of aging and not beiing able to do what you used to do.  Maybe the town struggles and Clark has to watch Smallville slowly weaken away too.  Maybe there's a bully in town and Clark can no longer defend himself or his family the way he once did.  Maybe they can save up some budget for a big finale where Clark finds a way to return his powers and uses it on Jordan so he can be the next Superman.  Or maybe they both get their powers back and Jordan gets to be Superboy.  Either way, it would just be a normal family drama for most of the season so that should save most of the CGI budget.

I've been wrong a lot about the right and Trump, and maybe you're right.  But you're seeing a lot of people on the right (senators, congressmen) say "we like Trump but this guy can't win" - he lost to Biden already with no indictments.  And while this might strengthen him with Republicans, this has to lose him even more independents.

Don't get me wrong - Biden is vulnerable.  But I cannot imagine anyone but hardcore Republicans voting for Trump over him.

Again, I've been wrong.  A lot.

If Trump gets indicted for the documents case, as is being rumored to be imminent, how long would it take for it to go to trial?  Would it be before or after the election?

Same question but with the possible indictment in Georgia, rumored to be in August.

I'm way behind the curve, but I watched Severance through a free trial of Apple+.

Really interesting show.  I'm glad there's a season two because there are TONS of unanswered questions after season one.  But it's probably one of the most intriguing shows I've seen.

Spoilers from Superman & Lois

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So at the end of the latest episode, Kyle comes to the farm to confront Clark, and Clark ends up having to reveal his identity so he can woosh off and save the day.

...has that really never happened to him?  I would imagine it would happen all the time with other parents at school, commitments at work, or other situations where Clark is one on one with someone who refuses to leave.  I would think Clark would be more prepared for that because I would think most people wouldn't take "we have to deal with this later" as an excuse.

I would think Clark would be able to superspeed and "vulcan neck pinch" someone or something.

Is there any way for Biden to test the 14th amendment theory without actually forcing it into the courts?  Can he just ask for a ruling without an actual case?

Or would there need to be some kind of "for show" lawsuit against the debt ceiling agreement to test its constitutionality?  I feel like there should be some way to determine the constitutionality of a president ignoring the debt ceiling.  We shouldn't let the global economy rest on the hands of such a hyper-partisan argument.

I mean if there's an opening for someone else to win the Republican nomination, I'm happy for that.  But who would that even be and how would that even happen?  Nikki Haley might not be terrible?  Tim Scott?  Mike Pence?  There aren't a whole lot of options.

Trump and DeSantis are both bad, but one is actively working against the interests of the West.  Trump could destabilize NATO.  Trump could crash the economy.  Trump could actively make things around the world worse.  I think DeSantis is bad because he's smarter than Trump (although the more I hear him, the less that could be as true as I thought) and thus could be more effective than Trump.  But I don't think he's compromised, nor do I think he would do something that's bad for the country / the West / the world to suit his own interests.  I think he's much more likely than Trump to actually put America first.

And if the Democrats are going to insist on running out an 82-year-old Biden and an unpopular VP in Harris, this race is scary.  And while I don't want to see a world where DeSantis is president, I don't know if the country can survive another four years of Trump.

So unless the far right wing of the Republican Party can throw a wrench into the works, it sounds like we have a fairly reasonable deal.  The progressive wing of the House isn't going to like it, but the far right wing hates it.  So it must be a pretty good deal for Democrats.

But Biden does deserve blame - they could've passed this a year ago and avoided any of this.  It wasn't necessarily the right thing to do, but it would've been the smart thing to do.  As I said, the Republicans are better at working the system - the Democrats trust the system way too much.  I think if the Democrats were as ruthless as the Republicans are, we'd actually get something done.  The problem is that both parties are so flawed that even when they're given control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, they fumble the ball too much.

******

In 2024 news, I'm not sure what to think of the Republican side of things.  Trump seems to have pulled way ahead of Ron DeSantis in polls, which I don't understand at all.  I can see how the New York indictment might look and feel like a political hit, but I heard rumblings that we might get an indictment in the Mar-A-Lago documents case soon and in the Georgia case in August.  Those two cases are both a) less politically motivated (although anything with Trump can be spun as politically motivated) and b) much more likely to land him in big trouble.  I know Trump will keep his base no matter what, but is his base still big enough to carry him through a Republican primary?  Does the Republican Party want a candidate who's on trial for multiple felonies, even if that's who their voters want?

I know DeSantis is potentially much worse, but I'm hoping he gets the nomination.  Not only do I want Trump out of the picture, but Trump would almost certainly sabotage any DeSantis campaign in the general.  I know DeSantis would be worse on a lot of issues (especially LGBT), but I also don't think he's compromised by a foreign government.  And so if we can get the Trumps out of American politics, I think I'd feel better about the long-term security of the country / the world.

I agree with you (and the chart I supplied agrees as well).  The problem I guess is that if Fox News is far right, what the heck is Newsmax or OAN?  Far far right?  It's all a bit silly, but I do think Fox is a step above those other two.

If I've learned anything in the past six years paying attention to politics, it's that Republicans are really good at understanding and exploiting the rules and that Democrats are far too trusting that the system will be fair or will not be exploited.  I don't think either are very good when they're in control.

One thing that's silly about the government is how inefficient it is.  If there's a discussion on whether or not Biden can use the 14th Amendment to override the debt ceiling, I think the President (or Congress) should be able to immediately bring that in front of the Supreme Court.  There should be no delay or debate.  We should know that now.

Two things:

Maybe it's a trick, but Cisco isn't returning for the finale.  I don't really buy that they couldn't make the scheduling work.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/the-f … &ei=16

Sounds like Wallace is hoping someone else will wrap up the Arrowverse for him
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/fla … OGBliubC3D

I watched both Ant-Man and Guardians Vol. 3.  I'll get into some quick spoilers so I'll set up spoiler tags:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

I thought this movie was...fine?  I thought the Quantum Realm was a bit confusing.  When we first see it, Janet is living by herself in some kind of cave?  Then Kang comes and they work together for a long time.  Then Kang gets his powers back and she gets rid of his power core...then we flash forward to the present.  I know she worked with Bill Murray in some sort of resistance before she was rescued.

But....were there people before Kang got there?  Did Janet not know there were other people and lived by herself because she didn't know any other way?  If so, did she bring the weapons she had (were they Wasp weapons?)

Or was Janet some kind of exile/recluse?

I know this type of story happens all the time where we get dropped into this fantasy universe and we meet all these societies and learn about their conflicts.  But this felt really confusing because I don't understand either side.  Some of the resistance people are basically humans and some are jelly monsters.  Are they both native to the Quantum Realm?  Are some of the humans other people who developed their own Pym particles?  Are Kang's people different?  Or were they created/cloned?

Also what a waste of William Jackson Harper!

I also am struggling to get Kang.  We have spent way more time with Kang than we did with Thanos, but I'm struggling to understand what makes Kang scary.  He's got powerful tech, but I would think the scariest thing about Kang is how much future information he knows.  But is his future info limited?  Because he was surprised a number of times.

But I thought he was good, and the movie wasn't boring.  I just thought it was fine.

Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 3

I recently found out that James Gunn didn't like some of the character beats in the Avengers movies.  He thought Quill wasn't dumb enough to punch Thanos and risk half the universe (I think that's the weakest moment of Infinity War).  I know that he didn't love Thor being with the Guardians.  I don't know if he was a fan of the alternate Gamora.

So I feel like the story felt hamstrung by some of those ideas.

But I thought it had a lot of heart.  I felt like they probably could've left out Adam Warlock, who I felt wasn't developed much.  I thought the breakup at the end of the movie felt unnatural, but I'm interested to see what (if anything) they do with these characters going forward.  But the Rocket stuff was great, and I found myself to be emotionally invested quite a bit.  Every one of the characters had a nice moment.  I think James Gunn is great, and I'm very excited to see what he does with DC.

I'm shocked none of the Guardians died.