Hot, Bad & Unpopular Takes

[Bidenworth2020]

When he was alive (on the show), I would've been a supporter of Pres. Frank Underwood (IRL).

Same

really? Now that surprises me. Why?

Frank’s cool bruh

yeah but he was like a murderer, lol. Did you like the jobs program he had .

[bagelman]

My local school district needs budget cuts.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

My local school district needs budget cuts.

Agreed. If they couldn't prepare you for this forum they don't need more money to waste.

[West_Midlander]

I don’t like any of the Home Alone movies.

Unpopular Admission: I've never seen them and they seem like they would be stupid.

[OSR stands with Israel]

When he was alive (on the show), I would've been a supporter of Pres. Frank Underwood (IRL).

Same

really? Now that surprises me. Why?

Frank’s cool bruh

yeah but he was like a murderer, lol. Did you like the jobs program he had .

Compared to Charles Logan , Underwood was an angel

[Bidenworth2020]

When he was alive (on the show), I would've been a supporter of Pres. Frank Underwood (IRL).

Same

really? Now that surprises me. Why?

Frank’s cool bruh

yeah but he was like a murderer, lol. Did you like the jobs program he had .

Compared to Charles Logan , Underwood was an angel

yeah I'd vote for Underwood in that matchup

[OSR stands with Israel]

When he was alive (on the show), I would've been a supporter of Pres. Frank Underwood (IRL).

Same

really? Now that surprises me. Why?

Frank’s cool bruh

yeah but he was like a murderer, lol. Did you like the jobs program he had .

Compared to Charles Logan , Underwood was an angel

yeah I'd vote for Underwood in that matchup

Yah Logan literally sold nerve gas to terrorists who then used the gas to attack the US.


He then was responsible for the assassination of President Palmer , one CTU agent and attempted to kill another(Tony) to frame Jack Bauer for the Murder.


Underwood was no where near as evil as Logan

[Bidenworth2020]

When he was alive (on the show), I would've been a supporter of Pres. Frank Underwood (IRL).

Same

really? Now that surprises me. Why?

Frank’s cool bruh

yeah but he was like a murderer, lol. Did you like the jobs program he had .

Compared to Charles Logan , Underwood was an angel

yeah I'd vote for Underwood in that matchup

Yah Logan literally sold nerve gas to terrorists who then used the gas to attack the US.


He then was responsible for the assassination of President Palmer , one CTU agent and attempted to kill another(Tony) to frame Jack Bauer for the Murder.


Underwood was no where near as evil as Logan

eh, Underwood only killed when he had to, to advance his goals. Logan seemed to enjoy it ,lol.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

House of Cards was a mediocre series, artificially propped by the media hype. It did start off promisingly, but inevitably turned into a total crap. Even our blandest posters know more about how political process really works than the show's writers.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

House of Cards was a mediocre series, artificially propped by the media hype. It did start off promisingly, but inevitably turned into a total crap. Even our blandest posters know more about how political process really works than the show's writers.

I’d argue that even the first season was crap, but Corey Stoll gave such a phenomenal performance that he elevated the series and that after he was gone, the flaws which were always there simply became more obvious.

[RINO Tom]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

House of Cards was a mediocre series, artificially propped by the media hype. It did start off promisingly, but inevitably turned into a total crap. Even our blandest posters know more about how political process really works than the show's writers.

I’d argue that even the first season was crap, but Corey Stoll gave such a phenomenal performance that he elevated the series and that after he was gone, the flaws which were always there simply became more obvious.

Good point.

I admit I do have some affinity toward season one, because they at least tried to stay true to a source material, the BBC series. Yet the fundamental flaw here was the difference between British and American systems of governments. It's relatively easy to change the PM under the former, while the whole elaborate plot "I'm pissed at being passed over as SoS/I recruit a Congressman to run for Governor/I cause his implosion/Convince the VP to resign, because he'd give up being one heartbet away from the Oval because of muh hurt fellings/Pray that I'd be picked as the new VP out of dozens of possibilities/I arrange for the President's downfall out" was just implausible. But not as ridiculous as the subsquent MUH DARK SHADOWY CONSPIRACY CRAP, the latter being being what utterly ruined another promising show, "Scandal", too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

House of Cards was a mediocre series, artificially propped by the media hype. It did start off promisingly, but inevitably turned into a total crap. Even our blandest posters know more about how political process really works than the show's writers.

I've actually never watched it, but have been turned off upon reading how one season had a big plot point involving around how some DNC member had a "secret list" of potential presidential candidates that an arc was about trying to obtain. Eyes rollingly worthy level of cringe. That's not how politics works.

[Former President tack50]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

I remember reading once (in AH.com I think) a post that claimed that while in WWI the central powers were roughly even with the Entrente in terms of resources, manpower, etc; in WWII the Axis powers were vastly outnumbered by the Allies. The fact that Hitler managed to conquer most of Europe was almost a miracle in some way (the bad kind of miracle of course).

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

Have you ever listened to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History?  He did a whole series on World War I that you might enjoy.  You can find it on iTunes Podcasts.

[DC Al Fine]

The hot takes on Jesus and the border wall on Christmas are cheap, if not idiotic. They were in Bethlehem to be taxed, not as refugees.

I understand your point, but that’s due to poor framing by ill-informed tweeters looking to make a quick point.
Mary and Joseph’s time as refugees was their stay in Egypt, after fleeing Herod’s slaughter of the Bethlehem infants (Matthew 2:13-23)
Their flight and exile to a foreign, suspicious land fits them into that category. Compared to that, their time in Bethlehem was a tax-induced road trip with poor accommodation.

Thank you. I guess it’s on me that such an event had slipped my mind. Nevertheless, it’s not as though their flight to Egypt is part of the popularly-known version of the tale (and yes, it may be in movies, but seriously, who talks about it?), so the analogy is of reduced utility.

And of course, such hot takes miss the theological importance of the Nativity. The flight to Egypt is in the same vein as the manger: He was despised and rejected by men from the beginning. There was no room for Him in the world He came to save.

[morgankingsley]

The age of consent should be 16 across every state

[Sirius_]

Neoliberalism is mostly just an empty term used by the far left and none of the people commonly called neoliberal by them are actually neoliberal.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Anyone who is unable to admit the simple truth that Kavanaugh is guilty is morally unfit for anything to do with politics, and should have their right to vote taken away.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

I watched a few Barbara Comstock ads, I now hate my ears.

[RINO Tom]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

I remember reading once (in AH.com I think) a post that claimed that while in WWI the central powers were roughly even with the Entrente in terms of resources, manpower, etc; in WWII the Axis powers were vastly outnumbered by the Allies. The fact that Hitler managed to conquer most of Europe was almost a miracle in some way (the bad kind of miracle of course).

While the bolded might have been true once the United States, a comparatively rested Britain and the Soviet Union were waging their war full war machines against Nazi Germany, Hitler conquered most of Europe against a depleted France and British forces fighting away from home.  The Nazi victory over France was, from a purely military POV, still impressive, but neither France nor Britain were in "war mode" to the point that they were in 1914, and especially not compared to Germany.  Additionally, Germany was not fighting a two-front war yet, as they were in WWI.  France aside, Germany was able to conquer (most of) Belgium in World War I, and they easily could have done the same with the Netherlands; they were just smart enough to at least leave them out of the war.  See the same for Denmark and Norway.  We must also consider that a lot of the parts of Europe that are shaded as "Axis-controlled" at their height involved actual members of the Axis that Germany did not conquer at all but rather strong-armed into joining them: Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and obviously Italy.  When we consider that Germany in WWI was fighting with an equally worthless ally as Italy (Austria-Hungary) and was able to push into France within sight of Paris, never let troops on German soil during the whole war and COMPLETELY demolish Russia in the east at the same time to the point that they left the war, I think they performed better as a military in WWI.

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

Have you ever listened to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History?  He did a whole series on World War I that you might enjoy.  You can find it on iTunes Podcasts.

I haven't, but my girlfriend and sister have both suggested it to me!  I am sure I would love it, and thanks for the reminder.

[windjammer]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

How justified were they?

They broke all international agreements about respecting neutral countries by invading and destroying a neutral country. Furthermore, Franz Joseph never cared about his neohew, all he wanted was to crush Serbia and austria dominance in the Balkans.

How is it justified?

[RINO Tom]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

How justified were they?

They broke all international agreements about respecting neutral countries by invading and destroying a neutral country. Furthermore, Franz Joseph never cared about his neohew, all he wanted was to crush Serbia and austria dominance in the Balkans.

How is it justified?

As I believe I explained, their actions - beyond considering Serbia literally sponsoring terrorism an act of war - were NOT justified.  However, in the end, that is what sparked the conflict.

[windjammer]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

How justified were they?

They broke all international agreements about respecting neutral countries by invading and destroying a neutral country. Furthermore, Franz Joseph never cared about his neohew, all he wanted was to crush Serbia and austria dominance in the Balkans.

How is it justified?

As I believe I explained, their actions - beyond considering Serbia literally sponsoring terrorism an act of war - were NOT justified.  However, in the end, that is what sparked the conflict.

I don't understand. Now you say their actions weren't justified?

[Lechasseur]

Not sure if either REALLY counts as a "Hot, Bad [or] Unpopular Take," but I have been on a World War I kick lately:

1) The Central Powers, in a vacuum, were completely justified in going to war, and Germany's over-the-line actions once the war broke out (took "the best defense is a good offense" to an extreme, for example) overshadow this simple fact WAY too much in our retelling of the Great War.  The Central Powers may have wanted a war, and they may have clearly been the overall "worse actors" in this conflict (I would agree with both), but Austria-Hungary had every right to go to war with Serbia, and Germany had every right to back them up ... until conspiracy theories are proven.

2) Germany was much more impressive from a military standpoint in WWI than they were in WWII, regardless of the fact that Hitler was able to conquer much of Europe.

How justified were they?

They broke all international agreements about respecting neutral countries by invading and destroying a neutral country. Furthermore, Franz Joseph never cared about his neohew, all he wanted was to crush Serbia and austria dominance in the Balkans.

How is it justified?

As I believe I explained, their actions - beyond considering Serbia literally sponsoring terrorism an act of war - were NOT justified.  However, in the end, that is what sparked the conflict.

I don't understand. Now you say their actions weren't justified?

I think he was talking about Serbia's actions not being justified