hesusingthespiritbomb

The current senator minority leader is Chuck Schumer. He's incapable of being an effective opposition leader. The dude is addicted to the status quo, terrified of rocking the boat, completely disconnected with the American people, and overall stuck in the mindset of a 20th century politician.

There is a lot of frustration with him among democratic voters, but he's maintained his power among the donors and other senators.

A huge part of his argument is that there's nobody else that can replace him. At the moment, he's not wrong. His rivals in the Senate are either cut from the same cloth as him, or are in their own way content with the status quo. I know people on Lemmy love Bernie, but the man was elected to the Senate the same year Pokemon Diamond and Pearl hit the shelves and is no closer to the revolution he promised.

While this filibuster doesn't accomplish anything itself, it's part of a larger effort Booker is making to raise his national profile and position himself so he can replace Schumer. In that context, it's an important and smart strategic move.

Ironically this filibuster was probably less physically and emotionally exhausting than trying to teach all of his Senate colleagues how to effectively use TikTok.

Okay but the Rock once made a profit off a movie based on the video game Rampage. Some movies don't require good acting.

You know the US isn't the only country that has issues due to letting in more immigrants than they can handle right? You are stating a position that would be considered radical in virtually every western nation as if it were an established fact.

Inflation and immigration were both at like 40 year highs. Also not only did a large number of billionaires favor Harris, but Harris won the majority of American households making over 200k per year.

Quit it with this gaslighting shit.

The AP is headquartered in NYC. They write their articles in American English. They spend a wholly disproportionate time covering US news, and the closest relationships they have are with US institutions. The author of this article has an American education at a state-managed university.

The national language of Denmark is Danish. 15 percent of the nation doesn't even speak English.

This is 100 percent an article meant for US audiences, from a primarily US news organization.

A danish news organization will have articles about what Danes think of tariffs. The same with a Canadian news organization, a German one, etc. Yet for some reason almost all of what American sources talk about is what citizens of other countries think.

I think the fact that American establishment publications put out more articles about what citizens of other countries think of tariffs than what Americans think of tariffs is part of the reason why Trump won.

The upper 10 percent of liberal America seems to think of themselves as citizens of the world, and seems to spend more time caring about anything other than Americans outside their hyper-specific socioeconomic niche.

The end result of this mentality is that Trump was able to make huge inroads with groups that were historically democrat's bread and butter in 2024. Even if he was lying through his teeth, he and his team made real efforts to appeal to issues that were important for demographics.

I'm willing to bet you could find people from Hawaii to Mississippi altering their spending habits in fear of Trump's tarrifs. Maybe the press should spend more time reporting on them.

Obviously, neither Trump nor MAGA is the answer. However there needs to be a way to talk with how out of touch so much of our establishment is without sounding like a Trump supporter.

This article almost feels like gaslighting.

Disney has put out a ton of content that follows the same power. It generally can be summarized as "put out overpriced mediocre garbage, hamfist some culture war stuff in there, and then imply anyone who doesn't like it is some sort of deplorable.

This movie:

• Had a budget of at least 270 million, meaning that it would have to make like 700 million to be considered a success
• Looks mediocre as all hell regardless
• The Dwarves are CGI monstrosities that feel more at home in a horror movie. This is because Disney kept pivoting to dumber decisions based off petty internet drama.
• The decision to cast a Latina in a movie where the actress is explicitly white is on some level a deliberate decision to start culture war drama. Disney has had multiple WoC as princesses for over twenty years now, so it's not like they didn't have other movies they could have adapted
• They made Zegler look a lot less attractive than she is IRL via poor wardrobe choices, while managing to capture Gadot's beauty.
• Israel aside, I have zero idea why Gadot is cast in this. She's like the female version of the rock in that she's only really good in stupid action movies that take absolutely minimal acting abilities
• I understand Lemmy is super pro-Palestinian. However the general viewing public is a lot more divided, and many people simply don't want modern politics in a movie they take their small children too. This is the kind of shit you say at a premier of a small budget film, not something that has to gross hundreds of millions of dollars
• Zegler also harassed Gadot on set, despite the fact that she was trying very hard to not bring politics into the workplace. Again I understand Lemmy might think that's amazing, but most working people recognize that as the kind of shit they put in an HR training video
• Zegler also seemed to go out of her way to insult hardcore fans of the show. This is especially egregious because hardcore fans are the type of people to see an IP no matter how bad this is.
• Unlike Joker where you can just dodge criticism by calling fans of the original incels, hardcore fans of Snow White tend to be gay men and white women. The end result was a lot of the outrage came in the form of gossip influencers throwing shade, which the Disney PR machine was not prepared to counter.

The most ridiculous part of this is the trailer for Lilo and Stich, a movie that is a million times more minority forward than the Snow White remake, dropped to largely positive reception. 2024 is going to be simultaneous "Snow White failed because of bigotry" and a movie centered around two woman of color, and unconventional definition of family, and Hawaiian culture prints money hand over fist.

Honestly it wouldn't have been allowed back then except for the fact that an openly gay man who could pass as straight was still a novel and funny idea.

As a sidenote Neil Patrick Harris is a million times worse in Harold and Kumar, but that somehow aged better on account of everything in those movies being comically offensive.

"Millionaires row" could also describe any collection of homes on Long Island above 2000sqft at this point.

No. However if you're the type of person to ask in this question, you should be invested in a target date fund. As part of the way they attempt to hedge for retirement, the include exposure to international funds and bonds.

How I met your mother aged extremely poorly. The ending rightfully gets a lot of flak, but the characters are just massive toxic assholes in a way that isn't really funny.

Also I'm like 90 percent some of the ways Barney convinced women to sleep with him could be classified as rape. I get the joke that Neil Patrick Harris was gay, but it's still uncomfortable to watch. Oddly enough I don't get the same feeling when I was Neil in Harold and Kumar.

On the flip side Scrubs aged surprisingly well. It has problematic moments that you'd think would get ridiculed in the modern era, but hits the emotional beats hard enough that it manages to still remain watchable. Also the joke about clowns and whores is still fucking hilarious.