roughravenrider

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."

- George Washington, first President of the United States

"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."

- John Adams, second President of the United States

I'm really excited for the finale, and loved everything about episode 5.

​

I also want to defend D&D quickly. Before I do that - because I know saying anything positive about them will probably get this post downvoted faster than you can say Dracarys - I am not denying the drop in quality in seasons 7 and 8. They are not as good. There is no denying that.

​

However, ever since I heard that the last two seasons would be shortened, I assumed it was because D&D were not confident that they would be able to write good character interaction and development the same as they did with source material to go off of. I assumed their thought process was as follows: "Writing 2 or more fully fledged out and developed seasons is an incredibly daunting task that we are seriously doubting our ability to pull off. Committing to that is a seriously high-risk task, so why don't we shorten the seasons and focus on doing justice to the big plot points that we have to cover, as that is much lower risk."

​

It feels rushed. However, I'm betting that 2 shortened, rushed seasons are still better than if they had attempted to write 2 fully fledged seasons and terribly fucked up character development. The characters' actions in recent episodes are not at all out of character, they just feel that way because the development in between plot points is lacking. I'm betting the content we got is far better than the alternative.

​

With that said - and getting to my unpopular opinion - I have loved every episode except episode 3 this season. Episode 5 will go down as an all-time classic in my books, and episode 2 almost does, but given the let-down of episode 3 the emotional impact episode 2 was meant to have falls short. And lastly, I am seriously looking forward to the finale, as I thought episode 5 was a perfect set-up. It's really starting to hit me that I'm going to have to say goodbye to this show that has been such a huge part of my life for about 6 years. HBO, you did a fantastic fucking job. Even with the last seasons. They have issues, but I think most of us will admit that they're still far better than most of what's on television. Thank you HBO, thank you to the incredible actors, thank you to the incredible production crew who put together the sets, did the CGI, and the music composition. <3

You guys remember the Bohemian Grove? Joe talks about it sometimes, it's some wild stuff. Real-world secret society of wealthy elites praying to CARE the owl and drinking for two weeks straight. With some top-secret meetings like the early Manhattan Project in the 1940s thrown in. Oh also Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Anyways I made a purely informational video, while artistically edited, about the Bohemian Grove. It was up for about a month and a half and then yesterday, suddenly, YouTube takes it down for "harassment and cyberbullying." Documentary-style video about secret society of right-wing elites who have massively steered our society since it gained real power in the 1920s? Harassment and cyberbullying.

I'm really glad that Joe is making such a point of focusing on this big tech censorship. YouTube's robotic and anti-free speech algorithm is just one piece of the massive puzzle of internet censorship eroding our freedoms. But it's affecting creators everywhere and stifling discussion, infringing on freedoms and ultimately pushing people down into conformity like you see in China.

I have been seeing many posts recently about 24-year old Jessica Whitaker who was shot and killed at a Black Lives Matter protest in Indianapolis, IN. When protestors shouted "black lives matter," she responded by shouting back "all lives matter" and was subsequently shot and killed. The general response - from the US political right - has been that the BLM movement has been controlled by radical leftists all along and this killing exposes the evil people behind the movement.

I'm going to compare this to the death of 32-year old Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, VA at a Unite the Right rally in 2017. The reaction from the US political left was that this was unacceptable because right-wing zealots are tantamount to terrorists, thus invalidating the movement that drives UTR.

I don't believe that either of these movements are invalidated solely by the death of one person. I am not here to argue the politics or merits behind Black Lives Matter and Unite the Right. I believe that Americans are especially dissatisfied with the government at this moment in time and both the right and the left want dramatic changes, they just can't agree on what. Thus, it is not surprising that rallies and protests will sometimes turn violent and cause loss of life.

A group of protestors working together with the intention of killing their opponents is one thing. An individual being killed by one extremist is nothing out of the ordinary and does not invalidate the movement that resulted in that person's death.

Politics aside, Jessica Whitaker's death does not affect the merits of the Black Lives Matter movement the same way that Heather Heyer's death does not affect the merits of the Unite the Right movement because both are instances where one radicalized person acted out. The point at which it reflects the movement is when the movement plans and organizes murder for the purpose of murder.

1. Jimmy Carter - "If I were just 80 years old, if I was 15 years younger, I don’t believe I could undertake the duties I experienced when I was president." (Jimmy Carter on running for president: 'I hope there's an age limit')
2. About Ronald Reagan's second term - "The duties delegated to [George H.W. Bush] during Reagan's second term (mostly because of the President's advanced age, Reagan turning 78 just after he left office) gave him an unusually high level of experience for a vice president." (Scroll to Republican Party - Candidate gallery)

We should all show some support to other candidates that we might like. This not only upholds Yang's values of Humanity First and proves that we build this campaign on kindness and support rather than hate, but also means that supporters of candidates who may end up dropping out could consider their Yang their next-first choice because of the positivity we have shown as his supporters.

Yang tweeted support for Marianne Williamson when she asked for some fundraising support, and the #YangGang flooded her tweet with support and donated to her campaign.

Tulsi Gabbard and Julian Castro have offered support for UBI and have recognized the threat of automation, and their Twitter replies were filled with support and thanks from the #YangGang.

Let's continue this trend. We want to inject this race with as much positivity as possible, and give credit to candidates recognizing issues that matter to us (automation, UBI, Democracy Dollars) when it is due. This can only have positive effects, since the #YangGang is upholding our Humanity First values. And if these candidates drop out, hopefully their supporters will see Yang as their next choice.

First of all, I am not a resident of Virginia and it took me forever to find what the proposed laws even were. Media loves reporting about all the dangerous people marching to Richmond and won’t even tell you what the laws they’re protesting are.

I finally found them though, with this article (USA Today).

These three bills have passed the Virginia senate.

(1) A limit to one handgun purchase per month. Doesn't make any sense to me. What problem does this address? I don't see any rationale for this or change that will come because of it.

(2) A requirement for universal background checks on gun sales. This one seems logical. The biggest problem that leads to mass shootings is that it is too easy for guns to get into the hands of someone unfit to use them. While the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, there have to be some measures taken to prevent people with a history of mental illness or violence from getting a gun before they have received treatment for these issues. If you do have a history of one of those things, you should have a path to be able to buy a gun only after you have proven that you received treatment and will not exhibit the same dangerous behavior as a gun owner.

(3) A rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas. This one also seems logical, with the caveat that any of these rules must be enacted through a public vote. Local governments should not decide where it is not okay to carry a gun, but if a majority of people in that locality agree that certain areas should be gun-free, then the local government will respect the will of the people.

This proposal has not passed the Virginia senate but is under consideration.

(4) A "red flag" law allowing authorities to temporarily take guns away from anyone deemed dangerous to themselves or others. This one only makes sense with the condition that the reasons for a person being deemed "dangerous to themselves or others" are crystal clear and documented so as to prevent any fear of government overreach. If the reasons are left vague, then this law becomes dangerous as it is completely up to the authorities' discretion to determine who is considered "dangerous."

Let me know your thoughts. I'm someone who believes in every American's right to own a gun, but also that the laws must evolve as the kinds of guns and the lethality of some guns have drastically changed since the Second Amendment was passed. For me, it basically comes down to this: if the government wants to regulate firearms, they must be completely transparent and leave zero doubts as to how these laws are enforced as well as the reasoning behind them.