Hotter, Badder, and Unpopularer Takes

[Boobs]

isnt this a remarkable self-own? even adding up every country there you don't get to $50 billion.... a far cry from the $30-40 trillion over 10 years that the Sanders campaign has estimated M4A would cost...

Or have you not yet gotten to addition in your math classes?

[heatcharger]

We should enact Medicare For All Citizens and pay for it by de-funding Israel.

Our annual foreign military aid to Israel isn’t even 1/100th the annual amount of health care spending in this country. What compelled you to turn your brain off before posting this?

Then I'll add NATO, the UN, and every other foreign power to the defund list. Will that work?

lol no

Our foreign commitments are literally pennies to what it costs to run health care in this country. One can be isolationist on principle and support the government covering all health costs for its citizens, but the math to justify one for the other isn't there.

[OSR stands with Israel]

What's weirdly specific about Israel? This is what's weirdly specific about Israel.

 3.1 billion isnt even enough to fund Medicare for All for One Day lol

[lfromnj]

Again grassroots the problem is that Israel is the most foreign aid but its only like 7% of foreign aid and you speciifcally called out israel as the first country that should be cut. Israel is one of our most loyal allies in the world. I don't want foreign aid but don't call out Israel first.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Believing in freedom of movement is incompatible with believing that sub-Saharan Africa is "for" black people or North America should have been "for" First Nations people. The problem with the conquest of the Americas and the colonial empires of the more recent past was that the people who lived in these places were being subjugated to unaccountable foreign rulers who enacted genocidal policies against them, not the mere fact that new people were coming in.

[America Needs R'hllor]

You people don't seem to be understanding. If we defund all foreign governments, NATO, and the UN, we could pay for or at least come close to paying for my proposal.

My proposal isn't Medicare for All, it's Medicare for All Citizens. Not only does that significantly lower the cost, but it is significantly more productive and efficient.

Do you actually thing that letting the immigrants die will solve this economic problem? Lol this is just so sad, I'm pretty sure I had better takes when I was a far right 12 year old.

You really justified this thread's name huh? A wonderful mix of racism and flat out anti-factual bullsh**t.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Time for my own bad take, I guess.

It is perfectly acceptable for the governments of large and powerful states such as the United States to cultivate regional partners through the provision of defense and development aid. Controversial, I know.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is almost as dumb amd mathematically illiterate as that "To balance the budget we should start by cutting Congressmen's salaries" type nonsense.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This is almost as dumb amd mathematically illiterate as that "To balance the budget we should start by cutting Congressmen's salaries" type nonsense.

It’s a drop in the bucket, sure, but if we end the wars with it and halve the defense budget than we’re on our way.

[America Needs R'hllor]

This is almost as dumb amd mathematically illiterate as that "To balance the budget we should start by cutting Congressmen's salaries" type nonsense.

It’s a drop in the bucket, sure, but if we end the wars with it and halve the defense budget than we’re on our way.

this_is_fine.jpg

[John Dule]

Believing in freedom of movement is incompatible with believing that sub-Saharan Africa is "for" black people or North America should have been "for" First Nations people. The problem with the conquest of the Americas and the colonial empires of the more recent past was that the people who lived in these places were being subjugated to unaccountable foreign rulers who enacted genocidal policies against them, not the mere fact that new people were coming in.

So you must not care about gentrification, right?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Believing in freedom of movement is incompatible with believing that sub-Saharan Africa is "for" black people or North America should have been "for" First Nations people. The problem with the conquest of the Americas and the colonial empires of the more recent past was that the people who lived in these places were being subjugated to unaccountable foreign rulers who enacted genocidal policies against them, not the mere fact that new people were coming in.

So you must not care about gentrification, right?

I care about it insofar as it ends up causing COL-driven displacement, but that's not the fault of the people moving in, most of whom (at least early on) are attracted to low-income neighborhoods because they're not making a ton of money themselves.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

There is no such thing as a monolithic social conservative demographic, and there is also no such thing as a monolithic social liberal demographic.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

He still wouldn’t win, but the person who would do the best in an election in Oklahoma as a democrat is Toby Keith.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Not posted in the right place for peak argumentation, but

if Bernie Sanders is interested in defeating Donald Trump, and has an army of internet mouthbreathers who worship him and are viscerally anti-Biden but won't take anything the Biden camp does as a good faith effort at reconciliation, then it is disproportionately Sanders's job to win these people over to Biden's camp.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Avengers: Endgame" was lazy story-telling.

[Badger]

In terms of looks Margot Robbie is pretty overrated. Is she a pretty attractive woman? Obviously. Is she the HOTTEST WOMAN EVER CAUSES FEELINGS JUST LOOKING AT HER like many guys and quite a few lesbians rave about? Not exactly.

She is a very talented and utterly fantastic actress of course.

Worst take ever.

[Badger]

He still wouldn’t win, but the person who would do the best in an election in Oklahoma as a democrat is Toby Keith.

10 or 15 years ago maybe. He's rather old hat now.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

He still wouldn’t win, but the person who would do the best in an election in Oklahoma as a democrat is Toby Keith.

10 or 15 years ago maybe. He's rather old hat now.

Imagine a Democratic Senator who comes to work every day in a flag suit.

[Rjjr77]

He still wouldn’t win, but the person who would do the best in an election in Oklahoma as a democrat is Toby Keith.

10 or 15 years ago maybe. He's rather old hat now.

Imagine a Democratic Senator who comes to work every day in a flag suit.

he hasnt been a democrat in 12 years.

[brucejoel99]

"Avengers: Endgame" was lazy story-telling.

Okay, I seriously disagree here. Endgame was fantastic, & quite possibly the best superhero film since Logan.

Let's break it down.

The first hour was crucial. If they didn't let the effects of the Snap settle, then there'd be no weight to it. If the movie had picked up 10 minutes after Infinity War & they got right back to undoing it, then Infinity War might as well have never happened. The first half needed to establish how each character took the Snap, how people are still in a depression, & how the world is astronomically worse off. It needed to establish how not everybody 'lost' (Tony benefited from the Snap), how certain people lost everything (Thor was sent into a total depression), & where each character ended up, including how Clint dealt with his family's death, how Bruce became Professor Hulk, & how Steve/Natasha have dealt with their own failure. It also needed to establish how Ant-Man escapes the Quantum Realm, why Captain Marvel is notably absent, & just the general tone of hopelessness. If the opening hour wasn't so dismal, grim, & hopeless, then the climax wouldn't work at all.

Secondly, the 2nd act (like everything) serves a purpose. The New York battle primarily served to show how Steve has changed across his whole arc (the "Hail Hydra" bit was honestly genius filmmaking), as well as establish the consequences for space-time if they fail to return all of the stones. Then, the Vorimir sequence fulfills Natasha's character arc in a fitting way (she finally "wipes out the red in her ledger"), while Morag establishes the climax & how Thanos reshapes his world-view. The Asgard sequence fulfills Thor's arc (for the Infinity Saga, at least) in finally accepting his place in the world, while the '70s-sequence sets up Steve's eventual departure & gives Tony much-needed closure with his father. Everything served a purpose, & the 2nd act's was to establish how the characters have changed over what has been - for them - nearly 15 years.

Furthermore, the final act is almost universally agreed to be f**king awesome. Yeah, it's basically 30 minutes of action & 10 minutes of bowing, but still: f**king awesome nonetheless.

Regardless, the pacing needed to be slow & the action needed to be sparse. It was the finale, after all. The bow on top. The pièce de résistance for a long, long journey. I don't know how emotionally connected you may or may not feel to these films, but consider it from the perspective of somebody who does; we wanted to see an emotionally-fulfilling arc. And hell, I'm not ashamed to say it: I cried at Endgame. When Tony hugged Peter, I bawled by damn eyes out. And that's because the setup from so many movies led to this. Plus, the overall lack of action only made the finale that bit more sweet. It felt earned. It felt justified. It made it feel that bit more epic.

Perhaps it was self-indulgent, but it was most certainly earned. For example, did you know that "Avengers... Assemble!" was the first time, in all 23 movies, that the full quote was said? That's restraint. That's self-indulgent fan-service to the extreme, but it was earned to the point that I still get chills everytime I see it. It may be 3 hours of fan service, & that might be meaningless if you're not a proper fan of the franchise, which is fine, but I think anybody who approaches Endgame without much investment is like going into the final season of a long-running TV show & complaining that it doesn't invest you. It's definitely self-indulgent, but I think it more than earned it. Everything was done to service the fans, but it wasn't cheap or lazy; it was damn earned with restraint, teasing, & ample setup.

Sorry for the rant, but yeah, I have a duty to fight takes like yours to the grave lol

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Avengers: Endgame" was lazy story-telling.

Okay, I seriously disagree here. Endgame was fantastic, & quite possibly the best superhero film since Logan.

Let's break it down.

The first hour was crucial. If they didn't let the effects of the Snap settle, then there'd be no weight to it. If the movie had picked up 10 minutes after Infinity War & they got right back to undoing it, then Infinity War might as well have never happened. The first half needed to establish how each character took the Snap, how people are still in a depression, & how the world is astronomically worse off. It needed to establish how not everybody 'lost' (Tony benefited from the Snap), how certain people lost everything (Thor was sent into a total depression), & where each character ended up, including how Clint dealt with his family's death, how Bruce became Professor Hulk, & how Steve/Natasha have dealt with their own failure. It also needed to establish how Ant-Man escapes the Quantum Realm, why Captain Marvel is notably absent, & just the general tone of hopelessness. If the opening hour wasn't so dismal, grim, & hopeless, then the climax wouldn't work at all.

Secondly, the 2nd act (like everything) serves a purpose. The New York battle primarily served to show how Steve has changed across his whole arc (the "Hail Hydra" bit was honestly genius filmmaking), as well as establish the consequences for space-time if they fail to return all of the stones. Then, the Vorimir sequence fulfills Natasha's character arc in a fitting way (she finally "wipes out the red in her ledger"), while Morag establishes the climax & how Thanos reshapes his world-view. The Asgard sequence fulfills Thor's arc (for the Infinity Saga, at least) in finally accepting his place in the world, while the '70s-sequence sets up Steve's eventual departure & gives Tony much-needed closure with his father. Everything served a purpose, & the 2nd act's was to establish how the characters have changed over what has been - for them - nearly 15 years.

Furthermore, the final act is almost universally agreed to be f**king awesome. Yeah, it's basically 30 minutes of action & 10 minutes of bowing, but still: f**king awesome nonetheless.

Regardless, the pacing needed to be slow & the action needed to be sparse. It was the finale, after all. The bow on top. The pièce de résistance for a long, long journey. I don't know how emotionally connected you may or may not feel to these films, but consider it from the perspective of somebody who does; we wanted to see an emotionally-fulfilling arc. And hell, I'm not ashamed to say it: I cried at Endgame. When Tony hugged Peter, I bawled by damn eyes out. And that's because the setup from so many movies led to this. Plus, the overall lack of action only made the finale that bit more sweet. It felt earned. It felt justified. It made it feel that bit more epic.

Perhaps it was self-indulgent, but it was most certainly earned. For example, did you know that "Avengers... Assemble!" was the first time, in all 23 movies, that the full quote was said? That's restraint. That's self-indulgent fan-service to the extreme, but it was earned to the point that I still get chills everytime I see it. It may be 3 hours of fan service, & that might be meaningless if you're not a proper fan of the franchise, which is fine, but I think anybody who approaches Endgame without much investment is like going into the final season of a long-running TV show & complaining that it doesn't invest you. It's definitely self-indulgent, but I think it more than earned it. Everything was done to service the fans, but it wasn't cheap or lazy; it was damn earned with restraint, teasing, & ample setup.

Sorry for the rant, but yeah, I have a duty to fight takes like yours to the grave lol

I'm talking about the entire idea. Far cooler to rebuild team with the B-list guys (I'm stealing a page from the Mike Allred run on X-Force here) and go and take on Thanos or whomever and win. IDK. I didn't follow the Marvel franchise. I don't have an emotional stake in this. Just not a fan of resurrecting half your cast so you get points from killing them and then increased points from being able to continue using them.

[It’s so Joever]

Florida is lean D.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm talking about the entire idea. Far cooler to rebuild team with the B-list guys (I'm stealing a page from the Mike Allred run on X-Force here) and go and take on Thanos or whomever and win. IDK. I didn't follow the Marvel franchise. I don't have an emotional stake in this. Just not a fan of resurrecting half your cast so you get points from killing them and then increased points from being able to continue using them.

Would you say that a generational divide is at play? With older people have older preferences and so on...

[brucejoel99]

"Avengers: Endgame" was lazy story-telling.

Okay, I seriously disagree here. Endgame was fantastic, & quite possibly the best superhero film since Logan.

Let's break it down.

The first hour was crucial. If they didn't let the effects of the Snap settle, then there'd be no weight to it. If the movie had picked up 10 minutes after Infinity War & they got right back to undoing it, then Infinity War might as well have never happened. The first half needed to establish how each character took the Snap, how people are still in a depression, & how the world is astronomically worse off. It needed to establish how not everybody 'lost' (Tony benefited from the Snap), how certain people lost everything (Thor was sent into a total depression), & where each character ended up, including how Clint dealt with his family's death, how Bruce became Professor Hulk, & how Steve/Natasha have dealt with their own failure. It also needed to establish how Ant-Man escapes the Quantum Realm, why Captain Marvel is notably absent, & just the general tone of hopelessness. If the opening hour wasn't so dismal, grim, & hopeless, then the climax wouldn't work at all.

Secondly, the 2nd act (like everything) serves a purpose. The New York battle primarily served to show how Steve has changed across his whole arc (the "Hail Hydra" bit was honestly genius filmmaking), as well as establish the consequences for space-time if they fail to return all of the stones. Then, the Vorimir sequence fulfills Natasha's character arc in a fitting way (she finally "wipes out the red in her ledger"), while Morag establishes the climax & how Thanos reshapes his world-view. The Asgard sequence fulfills Thor's arc (for the Infinity Saga, at least) in finally accepting his place in the world, while the '70s-sequence sets up Steve's eventual departure & gives Tony much-needed closure with his father. Everything served a purpose, & the 2nd act's was to establish how the characters have changed over what has been - for them - nearly 15 years.

Furthermore, the final act is almost universally agreed to be f**king awesome. Yeah, it's basically 30 minutes of action & 10 minutes of bowing, but still: f**king awesome nonetheless.

Regardless, the pacing needed to be slow & the action needed to be sparse. It was the finale, after all. The bow on top. The pièce de résistance for a long, long journey. I don't know how emotionally connected you may or may not feel to these films, but consider it from the perspective of somebody who does; we wanted to see an emotionally-fulfilling arc. And hell, I'm not ashamed to say it: I cried at Endgame. When Tony hugged Peter, I bawled by damn eyes out. And that's because the setup from so many movies led to this. Plus, the overall lack of action only made the finale that bit more sweet. It felt earned. It felt justified. It made it feel that bit more epic.

Perhaps it was self-indulgent, but it was most certainly earned. For example, did you know that "Avengers... Assemble!" was the first time, in all 23 movies, that the full quote was said? That's restraint. That's self-indulgent fan-service to the extreme, but it was earned to the point that I still get chills everytime I see it. It may be 3 hours of fan service, & that might be meaningless if you're not a proper fan of the franchise, which is fine, but I think anybody who approaches Endgame without much investment is like going into the final season of a long-running TV show & complaining that it doesn't invest you. It's definitely self-indulgent, but I think it more than earned it. Everything was done to service the fans, but it wasn't cheap or lazy; it was damn earned with restraint, teasing, & ample setup.

Sorry for the rant, but yeah, I have a duty to fight takes like yours to the grave lol

I'm talking about the entire idea. Far cooler to rebuild team with the B-list guys (I'm stealing a page from the Mike Allred run on X-Force here) and go and take on Thanos or whomever and win. IDK. I didn't follow the Marvel franchise. I don't have an emotional stake in this. Just not a fan of resurrecting half your cast so you get points from killing them and then increased points from being able to continue using them.

Fair enough, I guess. It's a cool idea, I'd grant you that, but at that point, it's also just a different movie if we're not getting the heroes' fitting character arcs (& final resolutions), especially for the OG 6 Avengers.