Tell me your Canadian without telling me your Canadian.

OH and in high school I read most of John Green's books several times. Some are better than others

Looking for Alaska is the best and I will die on this hill.

Yes please.

This is going to be very rambly.

It’s been a long time since I’ve read a book multiple times. I just have so many books I want to read that I find it hard to justify rereading something even if I loved it.

So I have to go back quite a while to find something like that but I do have it: the last book in the original Percy Jackson series, The Last Olympian.

It was the culmination of the five book series and it was epic. It was my first time reading an urban fantasy/mythology anything (and I was never much into HP anyways). I loved the first person narrative. I absolutely loved the romance.

I wanted to put The Lightning Thief here but it felt more appropriate to put TLO because it’s the ending. And what’s sticks with me is the PercaBeth stuff, I’ll be honest. “For once I never looked back” vs “it was the best underwater kiss of all time”. It’s been a decade since I read either book and I’m sure I’ve messed the wording up but it’s still stuck with me and hey, that says something.

I did read the Heroes of Olympus series that was the sequel but it never grabbed me the same way - primarily because it wasn’t a first person pov. And after that, I grew out of it, so never got around to the rest.

But on PLO. I loved the writing. I loved Percy’s sarcasm and his wit. I loved his way of fighting. I loved all the other characters. Obviously, I loved the romance. But I loved the adventures throughout the books and the way it all built up the final one and how it paid off there.

I don’t know what else to say. It’s a great series. Give it a read if you want.

I haven’t read it since I was a teenager. I tried reading the first one again, it was very fun and nostalgic. But it was also, clearly for kids. Not to say I didn’t enjoy my time with it and I could have continued reading, but well, I didn’t. As I said earlier, there are a lot of books I want to read and I find it hard to justify rereading something.

Curse of growing old, I guess.

I legit couldn’t believe it. Had to go digging it up. But yeah, it’s real.

“A young 74, cancer notwithstanding”.

NEW TAGLINE.

I want to see an update to this article now that she’s lost. Also, it’s so interesting that she is considered a “rebel”. Like, what?

These progressives need to realize the only realize Bernie got the clout he did in the Democratic Party is cuz he’s an Independent. They literally can’t touch him. Everyone else? They shut them down. There is no scope for people like AOC or anyone else to rise higher and attain genuine power. And you have to always watch your back, cuz they’re always looking to primary you. It’s just a lose-lose. Even if you believe in electoralism, you cannot do so from within the Democratic Party. They will just suck you in and bleed you dry. You have to cut them off.

So what’s the deal with AOC? What would the Oversight or whatever position have done?

You're good,

I might be one of the few hexbear users who doesn't frequent any megathreads lol. Dunno why. It's just never been my thing.

…yes?

I’ll be down for the reading!

don't show this to

Don't forget blaming all problems on immigrants. But I guess even the Democrats do that now so there's little difference there.

I’ll stick to Kamala cuz you brought her up.

IMO, they know what to do if they want to win. FDR showed them and was the most successful Democratic president in modern history. successfully. Bernie showed them by getting unprecedented number of people, young and old, rural and urban, to support him - without any institutional backing.

If Kamala wanted to truly, from the bottom of heart, win, above everything else - just like what Trump wants - then she would’ve done what they did. Promised populist policies, and presented herself as anti-establishment and gotten the staff that would support that.

Of course, this would require the DNC to back her up, giving her the kind of support Trump receives - but lets suppose for a moment they also want to just truly win at all costs - if that is what they want above all else, then why wouldn’t they?

This didn’t happen. This never happens. It will never happen. They might gesture towards some populist messaging sometimes (because there are factions within every group) but overall? They don’t want to win like that. They cannot afford to.

So they lose. And they combine their forces to defeat anyone who threatens to win along those lines.

To Democrats, being the Center party, being the neoliberal party, making sure they at some level appear to have some working-class voices, but never allowing them to rise beyond a certain level or amass more than a trivial amount of power, is far more important that “winning”. That is, in my opinion, their role.

IKR? Like, if we can add some examples with each of the statements of the Dems doing that, then I feel this could be a very good and convincing piece for libs on the fence.

I found the image on Twitter. I searched the quote via a search engine and it brought me to a Medium article from 2011.

Well, I say article. It’s just the quote. So I guess that’s the origin? I don’t know. Someone somewhere took it from Medium and made it all “officially”.

North Korea would never.

I don’t think it’s going to be an actual party. I think this is partly a pressure campaign to get the DNC to change, and partly he (and others) are sending out feelers to see how much of the movement is still there/can be re-established for a non-party movement. A mix between a ground-up operation to find and hold candidates, collaborate various orgs, influencing politics within DNC etc.

Maybe I’m wrong though.