I remember folks asking in 2024 “What do we do if Trump wins?!?” and my answer was “The same thing you should be doing if Kamala wins: the same thing you should be doing now.” Which is organizing locally and building outward.

If you have a union, participate in it. If you don’t, get to know your coworkers and normalize talking about what you’d like collectively. Organize your apartment building to get together on the holidays. Know who your city council member is, and your county supervisor. Participate in mutual aid and lobby for laws in your own backyard. Think about not just what you don’t want – Republicans in national office – but what you really, really want: a shorter work week. Guaranteed access to living essentials. And then find the people, both inside government and out who have ideas for how to do this and ask how you can help. And keep doing it through the ups and downs.

Because your despair at Trump’s victory can be just as ephemeral as your joy at Paxton’s defeat if this is just sports. But if we have a purpose and a plan, every step forward or backward is part of a journey in which we can see our progress towards something that matters more than just the latest poll.

I get that, but these are also a tool for political revolution.

Bernie Sanders and AOC hosted a series of nationwide rallies against oligarchy in 2025. When they started, the political pundit class ridiculed these as out of touch. Oligarchy? That’s just a thing in Russia. Americans don’t even know what that is.

… cut to today. Oligarchy is a mainstream concept. They rallied people – not just folks like you and me, but a lot of normie #resistance liberals who were convinced in 2018 that Trump was an aberration on a well-functioning meritocratic American government – to shift political consciousness and organize in their communities to resist fascism.

Rallies are a tool to educate, motivate, and build public pressure, and can absolutely be used for good.

I actually don’t mind it. Regular direct communication with the public? That’s an improvement from Biden, who disappeared and rarely spoke to the press.

Don’t get me wrong: I hate what Trump SAYS at his rallies. But the rallies don’t bother me.

Town halls are better, though.

I think I’m going to start using my own domain, so I can change hosts if needed without having to change email addresses. This seems like it’s going to be an issue we’ll always need to be prepared to deal with.

I really liked this episode.

It was very silly and dumb.

The previous episodes were serious and dumb. I didn’t like them.

Silly and dumb, though, I like.

He’s a baller in interviews.

Also: I like how he uses his look.

I want to be clear: I don’t think every candidate should try and look like a macho tough guy. But I think everyone should find their look and lean into it. And his happens to be a flawless visual performance of traditional masculinity.

Which makes it so satisfying to watch when people try and put him off his game with fearmongering over evolving gender norms, and this absolute chad just dunks on them about what losers they look like when they insist on creating a lists of state-approved genitals.

I wish him so much success tomorrow, but regardless of the outcome he’s done amazing things in the campaign, and he’s going to be a force in American politics either way.

Jesus.

Can you imagine what she would’ve been like as a senator? The woman appears to have no foundation.

And her fiancé… this relationship sounds toxic. In all directions. His behavior and hers sound awful.

I think that’s a crude way of putting it.

But I agree that simply labeling black characters “Magical Negros” is unconstructive.

My understanding is that Spike Lee coined the term to point out when black characters are tokenized in a way that diminishes them as full, realized characters. Was Foreman not given these relationships because the writers neglected his character? Or was this just because of who he was as a character? I didn’t watch the show, so I’m genuinely asking.

I find John Coffey in the Green Mile a great case study. He literally is a magical negro. But also… constructively, what is the element of the film that needs corrected? Was his character disrespectful to black culture?

It didn’t seem that way to me, but if someone else feels otherwise I’m open to that opinion.

This can’t be right.

$5M is way too low to cover statues in gold.

Unless he’s paying Jarod $5M to pay a guy on Craiglist $75 to spray paint three statues gold. That might check out. Otherwise no way.

I don’t buy it.

You can find countless politicians – most of the Democratic party – who have learned how to support Israel in 2026: you promise in a closed door meeting to guarantee funding for Likud, never bring up Israel unprompted, and if asked, talk about how terrible Netanyahu’s leadership has been for Jewish security. And then you launder the cash as hard as you can and hope no one notices.

Most AIPAC candidates don’t talk about Israel these days. AIPAC is well known for running ads on whatever topic seems most likely to hurt their critics without talking about Israel.

I think Stevenson started from a place of being a pro-imperialist nat sec ghoul, but now is just having a public mental breakdown, tbh.

Wait, she’s not Jewish??

I say this as a Jewish anti-zionist: what the actual fuck?? Like… I grew up indoctrinated into zionism and left when I got old enough to start paying attention to news. So… what’s her damage?

Maybe this sounds silly, but I have a lot of pity for Jewish liberal zionists. It’s a cult. And I’m familiar with Christian Nationalist zionists (also a cult, but different one). I feel sympathy for people operating on childhood brainwashing.

And I kind of get folks like Biden, who probably formed an opinion before '67.

But what’s her fucking deal? I can have grace for people who were born into this or are really old, but she just sounds like she learned that Israel is an apartheid state in college and said, ‘Neato!’

I am so much more disgusted with her now than I was when I assumed that she was a member of the tribe. ULGH.

Agreed.

Tactically, if she wanted him to lose she should’ve just stuck to what she was doing, which was supporting him in words while undermining and maintaining plausible deniability. Then if he loses, you can lament that there was just no saving a flawed candidate.

Now if he wins, she’s a loser twice over, and if he loses it’s a phyric victory: she’s the villain who lost Democrats the seat, and instead of proving his politics can’t win in a swing state, the story is just that he got stabbed in the back by an ally.

Wishful thinking?

I’m stressed about this race, but hopeful.

I want to believe that at this point, she’s doing him more favors than harm.

I’m not so naive not to recognize that this isn’t a good thing. Having a prominent supporter knife you in the back 48 hours before election day is not something any candidate wants. But the truth is, this really just seems to reaffirm his message about standing up to powerful interests.

I’ve been struggling not to complain about the writing from right around the moment in the first episode when Vision first looked at Paladin and then flew away without questioning him. But I’m watching with my husband, and told him I was gonna try to bite my tongue.

And then JARVIS teased Vision about tying a better Windsor knot, and my husband blew up.

‘What?? WHAT!?! That’s a four-in-hand! These aren’t obscure knots!? Vision and JARVIS and every costume director would absolutely know the difference between a Windsor and a four-in-hand! There is just no way not to notice this! And Vision wouldn’t wear a Windsor! There’s a reason why …’

He went on for about 10 minutes, and he’s right. Maybe it’s minor. But… is it? It’s utterly sloppy. I suspect that Beatney and D’Arcy both know the difference, and are just trying not to let it distract them while acting. It’s like calling brown shoes black if you’re a British man who wears a tie. What’s the point of putting something like that in as a writer if you have no idea who your characters are and what that quip is supposed to mean?

I’m with my husband. It’s frustrating.

It made no sense for Vision to assert that he’d already reviewed all possible outcomes and confirmed that he’d checkmated Paladin and then to do exactly what Paladin wanted and then experience the obvious consequence of it.

Like… Huh?

The show is just nonsense, scene by scene.

As others have noted, these are fixable issues, so the choice not to is maddening.

I’m really struggling with Marvel shows these days.

Ironically, I think the problem is that they’re more like comics these days than they used to be. They run on vibes, and there’s no real expectation that the storytelling make sense. Why has Paladin confronted Vision twice with no plan to contain him? And his plan this time was to have him murder a slew of henchies before going into the trap box, and then not have any backup when Vision breaks out of the box, now vulnerable? Just skip the first part and save all the mercs for when it’s useful.

The whole show is like this. All of them are, tbh. I feel like Marvel just expects us not to notice that Vision and Paladin both attend a meeting with neither arriving with any particular objective other than to monologue and leave. How am I supposed to not notice how weird that feels? I don’t think I’m one of those picky viewers who complain about everything. That just genuinely feels completely off!

I’ll probably keep watching a little longer, but these shows feel like mid-tier fan fic at this point. I don’t like being put through this.