Many-Faced Votary

It is a reality check, as it's important for us to understand the context. Fascism is not a threat to us; it is already here. The more powerful of the two political parties with any relevance in the United States is an authoritarian death cult operating in an oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. The time for incremental reforms is past, especially when the vast majority of the reforms in recent decades have been for the worse, from Citizens United to the Voting Rights Act being dismantled across the country. There must be real, structural and fundamental, change.

Maybe stop putting words in my mouth. It is now too late this election cycle, but it didn't have to be, whether the mechanism was within or without the Democratic Party.

No; I want people to recognize that the "lesser evil" fully enabled and thereby gave us the fascism. Maybe it's time to stop giving them a pass and to start effecting change.

Okay, this one was actually funny. Snaps for that.

No, it is constantly choosing the lesser evil that resulted in that. This defeatist mentality that "better things aren't possible" is what has actually resulted in better things not being possible. When the greater evil gets even worse with every single year and the lesser evil follows them into absurdity and insanity, voting for the latter pushes the country into the wrong direction, more and more. Do you know what would prevent the decline of American political culture? Not voting for the increasingly terrible lesser evil, and instead, demanding better options. This is particularly true now, when the choice is either what's left of democracy or fascism: if that is every election from now on, and make no mistake that it will be, it means that fascism has already won. It's just a matter of time.

18 U.S. Code § 2383 was passed during the Civil War, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not a mode of enforcement; it was written, in historical context, as a precursor to Section III of the Fourteenth Amendment. The sheer notion that a Constitutional Amendment requires separate enforcement is itself enough to change it from the supreme law of the land to something constrained by politics and bound by political will. Saying that Section III is not self-executing is already enough to make it meaningless, which is what the five justices in the majority wanted. By the way, the Trump v. Anderson ruling is so sweeping that it invites arguments that the Department of Justice filing suit on that law would not disqualify Trump from federal office. Make no mistake, this will be the first thing argued in such circumstances, as SCOTUS fully expected. Instead, he will have to be explicitly barred by Congress to pass muster. I also question the thinking that the most feckless Attorney-General in the history of the country will actually attempt to convict Trump of insurrection.

This is incorrect, or they would have clarified that Trump is already ineligible. As per the ruling, Congress has to pass a resolution confirming that Trump is disqualified on those grounds, or a new law explicitly disqualifying him.

The Supreme Court trying to polish the turd with a paper-thin veneer of impartiality by refusing to exonerate Trump of insurrection (have we seriously sunk so low as to praise SCOTUS when they do less than the bare minimum?) is irrelevant in context. That context being that the 5-4 majority that went beyond the judgment to answer a legal question that was not even presented has rendered the Insurrection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment effectively inoperable. The rationale is that because Section V empowers Congress to enforce the Amendment, it must do so in every case the Amendment applies. This is mind-boggling sophistry, not to mention a profound legal pitfall. The so-called Constitutional Originalists on the Court have decided that rather than Section III being the self-executing disqualification it was obviously intended to be, it is actually just another form of impeachment. As a result, it faces the same problems impeachment does, including a party fully participating and complicit in rejecting democracy; consequently, it is completely useless. As far as this case, this tangibly entail two things: [1] that the Constitution does not apply to Donald J. Trump, and [2] that any Republican president in the future is free to attempt additional coups without repercussion. More generally, it means that there is virtually no consequence for Republicans who attempt coups, because Congress alone has the power and means to bar them from federal office. Even more generally, the ruling could be used to obliterate the whole Fourteenth Amendment, and potentially other Amendments with an enforcement provision. It is now nothing more than a paper shield, as you had better believe Republicans everywhere will cite this case to attack anything protected by it. If Congress must specifically pass legislation to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, its provisions are meaningless. The Justice Department cannot itself enforce the provisions or bring suit to do so. Federal courts cannot order federal or state governments, or private parties, to take action in order to fulfill the law of the land. Congress, and Congress alone, must separately and directly enforce the single most consequential Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Alternatively, he'll succumb to the sheer cognitive decline and signs of dementia he's been exhibiting for months now. I am far from a Biden fan, but isn't it ever so great to see the endless media coverage and manufactured problem of Biden's age with virtually no mention of Trump losing it? I fear this is wishful thinking on par with President Jesse Jackson, or President Martin Luther King, Jr., when those were discussed in their respective eras.

^ Monica should have been a billionaire herself due to the inevitable success of the nonpareil product that is Mockolate.

No. Delivering a modicum of justice is not, in fact, "opening fissures." The fissures were opened long ago by the now-fully fascist Republican Party that had increasingly rejected democracy and the rule of law for decades. The cracks existed beforehand, but they started to pull apart drastically during Nixon's time... Not as late as Watergate or his other scandals in office, but when he committed treason to narrowly win the 1968 presidential election. (A playbook imitated by Reagan in 1980.) I would be remiss not to mention the actual, literal stolen election of 2000. Is it even worth mentioning the stunning corruption of Bush's own brother being the Governor of Florida who directed its Secretary of State to purge voting rolls, of no less than three Republican justices having conflicts of interest in Bush v. Gore that should have been grounds for recusal even beyond the naked partisanship they displayed, etc.? The completely unchecked conservative media apparatus that deals with fabrications day and night, and which warps the narrative of all polity to favor Republicans because the legacy media uncritically adopts their stances in their efforts to appear "balanced," has perpetuated the radical and rapid rightward shift of the Republican Party, and that extends to their rejection of the rule of law. These are the fissures that need to be healed. This, along with the sheer spinelessness of establishment Republicans throughout Trump's term and after his insurrection on January 6th, is what has warped the country, rotted its politics utterly, and resulted in at least 35% of the population living in an insane fantasy world. Trump facing any measure of justice is good, actually. Trump would never relinquish power, even if it the presidency (and soon-to-be dictatorship) wasn't now an existential tether for him to avoid all legal consequences.

Ted, because while much (though far from all) of Ross' malice can be attributed to his sheer ignorance, incompetence, and dysfunction as a human being, Ted generally knows that what he's doing is wrong and he simply does not care. Having said that, he's much funnier (and intentionally so), even if it isn't saying much -- as you alluded to.

Please don't kill me, but Friends was a painfully unfunny and simply bad show when it first aired, and it neither aged well nor holds up to scrutiny. I have always held this view and am gratified to see a significant proportion of people finally beginning to express it. (Still infinitely better than The Big Bang Theory, though.) That said, this is fun! 1) Phoebe 2) Joey 3/4) Monica 3/4) Chandler 5) Rachel 6) Judas Iscariot 7) Ross

Go to! It's telling how your first instinct is to defend those lens rather than reexamine them. It's a lot easier to perceive the problem if you compare his essays on Tyrion, Doran, and especially Jon to the one on Dany. There is a pretty clear double standard at play when you contrast the conclusion of The Meereenese Blot with that of Other Wars, with some horrific gender-based interpretations and eyebrow-raising inferences that could only be achieved by valuing the slaver over the slave. Forgive me for not having much respect for slavery apologia and misogyny. Here's a significantly more valuable quote from George R. R. Martin himself, for your perusal: "I never held much with slavery [...] You can’t just go... usin’ another kind of people, like they wasn’t people at all. Know what I mean? Got to end, sooner or later. Better if it ends peaceful, but it’s got to end even if it has to be with fire and blood, you see? Maybe that’s what them abolitionists been sayin’ all along. You try to be reasonable, that’s only right, but if it don’t work, you got to be ready. Some things is just wrong. They got to be ended." ~ Abner Marsh, Fevre Dream

The Dothraki will resuscitate Dany's sickly body. She's already a traitor. I can see Dany making an evil pact with the Great Masters.

Yes, Mr. Feldman understood the themes of the narrative, the interplay and conflict of peace vs. war, and Dany's rejection of peace by embracing Fire and Blood at the end. Probably most importantly, because there was an outright erroneous conclusion to the contrary that was common among the fandom at the time, he realized that Dany administered Meereen capably and to the best of her ability and compassion, given the constraints of the "peace" that existed and her compromises to maintain it. Nothing about what he Mr. Martin said suggests that the conclusions of the essay were correct. That was based on the false premise that the peace was just and nonviolent. It also involved speculation on Mr. Feldman's part, speculation characterized by heavily classist and misogynistic views, combined with vile slaver apologia and the lionization of slavers over former slaves.

I don't think you should imply that house name informs behavior; that's a silly argument. In fact, the books have been careful to reject it outright. The entire point is that all families and houses, and therefore all royals and nobles (i.e., rulers), are comprised of people, who are different, differently virtuous, and differently flawed. To the extent that Targaryens as a whole feel the responsibility you're talking about, it is because they were the royal family who created and were inextricably linked to the Iron Throne that unified Westeros as one realm. Granted, I think Jon knowing this aspect of his identity might help in that regard, but it can't be considered an inherent thing after the Targaryen dynasty was deposed. Consider, the last two known living Targaryens. Viserys never bore the slightest bit of responsibility for the realm; he just craved power and what he deemed his birthright back. Daenerys feels responsibility for the realm even before stepping foot back into it, believing it her duty to dispense justice and provide prosperity. They are full siblings, but fundamentally different people with different perspectives on responsibility and duty. The Dance of the Dragons was a Targaryen civil war that nearly tore the realm apart again, by the way. I fully agree with this hypothetical! I simply don't believe the timeline will work out to make it happen. Jon's parentage reveal is very likely to fall at a point around or after which the lie is slain, for parsimony of scope. At this point in the books, entering the third act and climax, it is important to avoid unnecessary complexity that won't add anything significant to Jon's characterization or to the plot now. Dany will already be grappling with fAegon, thematically and otherwise. Granted, I could be wrong, and Mr. Martin's famous gardening might well shift things to align with what you suggested, but this is my reading of the published books and character arcs thus far. It is important to understand the context here. Jon, in the end, admitted that a paper shield was better than nothing. The very act of sending the letter demonstrates his relinquishment of that attitude.

In fairness, "evil clowns" is an accurate descriptor of the Cabinet overseeing a fourteenth consecutive year of austerity measures, a massive budget deficit, a crippled GDP, stealthily-raised taxes, and generally horrific economic conditions for the vast majority of Britons.

Do you question the profound polemics exemplified by helium life forms in the harlequin world of evil clowns?

I agree. You had no response to my arguments, and instead engaged in a series of ad hominem attacks. I turned out satisfied that your position does not hold up to scrutiny.

You think the tools of a murderous, authoritarian dictator with no respect for international law or norms can be successfully used against him, with no problem in doing so or negative reflection on those who would? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers in life... A series of extra-judicial assassinations and hoping for the best afterwards in the power vacuum left in a nuclear power is not actually a viable approach, as facile as it might seem.

Set aside the fact that gender-critical "feminism" is a tautology, and that it is derived from white feminism, which is neither actual feminism nor a philosophy that bears attention. I am well aware of what the "gender-critical position" is. Steelmanning it is pointless, because it inevitably leads to one conclusion, and because it is fundamentally reactionary and bigoted: effectively transphobia as an ideology. The very premises are that sex is immutable, gender identity and expression are irrelevant and secondary to biological sex, and that assigned sex at birth ascribes oppression or victomhood in a way that cannot change -- all of which are, in fact, objectively false. I have no desire to engage with Feminism-Appropriating Radical Transphobes. You can smell FARTs if you'd like; more power to you.

I addressed that: True enough. But what if engaging in this sort of action results in the deaths of millions more innocents?

What guarantee is there that whomever might replace Putin won't be worse? How would we accurately and comprehensively determine the "top warmongers" of Russia, and what number of extrajudicial murders would be enough to satisfy the condition that the next person will not be worse? Keep in mind that Putin has been facing attacks from the right for not going far enough in his war of aggression, and that a significant number of unaccountable oligarchs essentially own private armies in Russia that they purport to use for even worse goals. Most saliently, ultimately empty threats notwithstanding, Putin has given no indication of actually being willing to cause nuclear winter. Could you say the same of any of his potential successors?

It sure is, and it can do that lifting as intended. Trying to eliminate the very existence of trans people is, indeed, attempted genocide of trans people. "Ideologically driven?" You mean the ideology of studying and preventing genocide? Do you truly mean to insinuate that they offend your sensibilities for being against genocide, or that their interpretation of what genocide is wrong because you know better? I saw your edit afterwards; sorry. The quote function can definitely bug out a lot.