BillyClark

Those are smaller parts of bigger pictures. They make more sense if you get the context of the rest of the picture.

If you zoom in enough on a pointillism piece, it will just be a colored dot. Anybody can make a dot. It takes basically zero skill. But when you look at the dot in the context of everything else, it becomes more clear that it’s not just a dot, but a dot in service of a greater vision.

He could just go ahead and rename Trump Tower to the Donald Trump Center For Adults Who Can’t Read Good.

gotta trim a syllable off that last line.

That line is already five syllables. Your suggestion would make it four syllables.

Can drop the “of” and make it less formal grammar.

…or… you could use the completely natural “spews from his mouth.” But of course, that again would leave the line with only four syllables.

I personally wouldn’t mind if we renamed “America” to “Dollywood.”

What if he learns that America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian who couldn’t ever have been a US citizen because he died over 250 years before the USA even existed.

We saw during Trump’s first term how he acted as a baseline. We learned that the only saving grace to him being president was that he didn’t actually do his job, and he didn’t trust other people to do it, either. So his damage was mostly caused during a relative few major events and in his constantly being an attention seeker. The rest of the time, he was golfing.

His presidency is markedly different in his second term. Did he suddenly learn how not to be super lazy? People don’t often change like that. The more likely answer is that he’s experienced a substantial mental decline and the people around him are doing most of his job for him because he knows that if he stops them, he’ll be exposed.

When you look at that picture, you can obviously only see what a human can see. In fact, photographs and monitors are made for human eyes seeing things as a human would see them. A pig looking at this picture on my monitor might understand the image but think the colors are slightly off.

If a pig saw these three pigs together in person, they might tell them apart for different reasons than you, a human would.

And these are domesticated pigs, bred to look the way that a human wants them to look. Easy for humans to tell different breeds apart.

Here’s two scenarios: One, the fascists are completely defeated and lose all power. That’s actually the situation where Trump will definitely get monuments. Just like the losers of the Civil War made a point to build a bunch of monuments celebrating what huge losers they were, similar losers will do the same for Trump.

A second scenario is that the fascists win. A dictator takes over and we lose all of our freedoms. If this happens, it won’t be Trump, or at least it won’t be Trump for long because he’s so fucking old. He likely wouldn’t be able to put one of his loser sons in charge, since they simply don’t have whatever it is that Trump has. Even if they tried, I suspect some other Republican would easily seize power from him.

So that first real dictator Republican will want to glorify himself. He’ll want to pretend like he seized power legally. As a result, it’s quite likely that he’ll blame everything on Trump. He’ll point at Trump’s insurrection in 2021 as proof that Trump was a bad guy. And everything that he says about Trump will be the sincere truth, because Trump really is one of the biggest villains in American history.

So anyways, my prediction is that if Trump “wins” and starts true fascism in America, just like he said, nobody will build monuments for him. Trump will be an easy scapegoat because all you have to do is say exactly what he actually did.

Q doesn’t strike me as a gracious loser, even over petty things like this. Perhaps he made the best of a bad situation.

Despite appearances, Q aren’t all-powerful in every way. Depending on your take, The Sisko is either part Prophet, or is at least backed by The Prophets. Their relationship to time might be an issue for Q.

Generally, animals are much better at telling between members of their own species than members of other species. So, it may be that human brains are more hardwired to see more distinct colors in the range that comprises human skin.

What I’m saying is that it wouldn’t be shocking if Andorians didn’t notice that much of a difference between the skin colors of Archer and The Sisko, and conversely, they may have different names for shades of blue in their skin that are strikingly obvious to them, but not to humans.

So, it might actually be that an Andorian would consider them both pink skins. Which might not make things better, though.

The Sisko won a fistfight against Q.

This is the type of episode I’ve been wanting this entire season. This episode feels like the anime took a moment to just breathe. Some people might complain that even this episode did too much, but I think it’s reasonable, considering the rest of the season.

I wonder if they rushed through so much other stuff in other episodes just so that they could give Georgine’s visit more time to push the plot forwards.

One thing I liked about this episode is that, at the beginning, Georgine, talking about Rozemyne, insults Sylvester’s bad parenting, especially his laziness, leaving her to be raised by Ferdinand. And then, at the end of the episode, Georgine is proven right, but it was Wilfried. Wilfried was indeed raised extremely poorly, and that’s why he made the mistake in saying his farewells to Georgine, and the underlying reason for that is very related to Sylvester’s attitude about leaving all of his work to other people.

This type of thing is so important to good storytelling. The protagonists are not perfect, and sometimes they’re extremely flawed. The antagonists are fully fleshed out, thinking individuals. Sometimes, when you really think about a well-written story, you realize that literally the only reason the protagonists are seen as the good guys is that the story is written from their perspective, and that if the story was written from the opposite perspective, you’d believe the other side was the good guys.

Someone out there has been confused because they thought they parked on the 25th level.

Even if they had an extra $500 per month somehow, it’s not enough to just survive. For one thing, if you’re human, you need to at least entertain the possibility of vacations.

Why can’t we expect people to survive AND to have a decent quality of life?

I don’t think “found crypto” describes what you really mean, that he found a way to accept bribes and to use the bribe money to scam poor people.

All you have to do is release a new crypto coin, and have people bribe you with well-timed bribes to keep the price looking like it’s going up. The people giving you bribes know it’s just manipulation and that they’ll lose everything, but to all of the normal MAGA investors with room temperature IQs, they see a good investment.

That way, you get to double dip on the bribe money. When the bribes slow down, the price will go down and those people you grifted will lose everything.

The article says that he was diagnosed in March of this year. Maybe it just feels like longer to you?

The Constitution sometimes says the purpose of laws. You’ve shown the preamble. Another one I’m familiar with is in the Copyright Clause, where it says the purpose is to promote the progress of useful science and arts. Another is the “well-regulated militia” clause of the 2nd Amendment.

I’m not a lawyer, but as far as I can tell, Constitutional scholars today don’t think those parts have much, if any, legal weight at all. It’s like, the other parts are the important things, and the “why” is just to give context.

I think this is exactly backwards. Whenever the Constitution says “why”, that’s the most important part. Those parts set a standard by which the laws can each be tested, and inserts a lot of objectivity.

I mean, “promote the general welfare” is almost exactly a description of utilitarianism. If a law makes people generally worse off, then it should be unconstitutional on that basis alone.

If I was rewriting the Constitution, rather than specific laws, it would consist almost entirely of the goals of the government (such as having a democracy that reflects the will of citizens), and the rest of the Constitution would mostly list the legal rights of citizens. Laws would have to say in what measurable way they’re getting closer to the goals, and they’d become invalid if they didn’t live up to the measure. Any laws that moved us farther from our ideals would not be allowed.

U.S.’s Gulf Arab allies say “that would be the worst thing in the world.”

Yes because they are right there. America, on the other hand, is very far away from that area. Not that we should abandon allies, but we should approach the situation with all of the context in mind and afford it the response that aligns best with our country’s interests.

Meanwhile, our biggest allies in Europe have been moving away from oil, since they used to get tons of it from Russia.

They somehow learned that it’s not great to rely heavily on a resource that needs to be imported from dodgy areas of the world. It’s weird that America can’t seem to understand that very simple lesson.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to sell raw salmon to be eaten raw unless it has been frozen to kill parasites. So because it’s been frozen, a chef bragging about how it was caught the same day would just be misleading people. It can be kept frozen for some time and still maintain the same amount of freshness for the person eating.

In America, we don’t learn from watching others. Hell, we don’t even learn from our own mistakes.

Come to think of it, we barely even learn in the first place.