(or, if you hold out hope the Republican Party can be destroyed, substitute "someone from a non-Dem party")

if you think about it, Trump and Epstein were basically business partners, which means they're really Trump's files, which means they fall under the discretionary classification power of the president

I would be surprised if the Epstein files do not contain at least some stuff about Trump that it would be illegal to publicly distribute

I would like it if being right about things made me feel better than it does

there is, however, a prison planet named "New Folsom" which implies that they retained access to Folsom Prison Blues and someone thought it was such a cool song about a prison they named their prison after it

I've made a similar joke with friends but a) it was not directed at a specific person and b) I immediately explained the reference when someone didn't understand

it's so cool when things that look like unpredictable intellectual trends turn out to be the result of one weirdo having monet

the government must maintain the health of the Volk, not health of individual people

in fairness some of them destroyed liberalism because liberalism started meaning black people had the same access to institutional power they did

of course, we can't forget how he made his money: blackmail schemes based on the sex crimes he did

oh no I'll have to get the Larry Summers-sized wicker man out of stor-- I mean build a totally new Larry Summers wicker man from scratch

engaging in conspiracy theories like this suggests that you think what Israel did in Gaza would be fine if you thought they legitimately were indigenous to the region, which is a completely fucking insane position

there's also, at least in the context of fiction, a tendency for the villain to be the active force. batman stories don't start with barman waking up and deciding that today's the day joker goes down for good. they start with joker deciding today's the day he builds a clown mecha.

does Israel have a right to self-defense? to Palestinians have a right not to be bombed? is there an answer to either of those questions that is helpful for arriving at an opinion about "Israel engaged in an extremely destructive military campaign in response to a Palestinian terror attack"?

my problem is that it seems like if Israel has a right to exist Palestine presumably has a right to exist too and then we're back to "how do we weigh rights that are in conflict", at which point I'm not sure "right" gets us much

yes. very loose connection. I read Deepness first and I don't think I lost anything doing it that way