I'd guess the Firefly posters were more a nod to geeks. Deadpool 2's director, David Leitch (also directed John Wick), did stunt work in Serenity. Or could be a joke about Ryan Reynolds, Fireflies in the Garden, though that one is a bit more of a stretch. I'd guess it mostly is about just a nod for the sort of geeks who got behind the project in the first place... or perhaps a casting hint at who may be in Deadpool 2...

As for a rehabilitation idea, this may have filmed around the same time Fox said they'd be open to a reboot if Joss himself would be on board. Though given that came news came out in early February, I'd think this had already been filmed and in the bag by that point, unless they cut things that close in film making. If it was filmed after that news, then it certainly was a nod to that news.

So his statement on business was to brag about having some Harley Davidsons showcased to him on his presidential lawn? Why were tweedles -dum and -dee nodding along and smiling during that story?

What's his economic policy?
"I just met with some very smart people who are senior executives and stockholders for a great American company Goldman Sachs. In fact, they proudly introduced me to 3rd place 2011 Miss Sweden and we had a very relaxing jacuzzi together. And she offered to give me a handy under the water and i said no thanks."

So what if you had Harleys on your lawn you smug tosser? Tell us the business strategy.

@Mordhaus

Except that the United States has for many decades relied on undocumented immigrants as a source of low-wage labor to do the jobs most Americans don't want. Now all of a sudden, after using their cheap labor to keep failing American agriculture and manufacturing alive you just want to yank the carpet out from under them?

Most of the people now up in arms about the "scourge" of illegal immigrants have HIRED illegals at one time or another (in the case of Trump, I'm sure he still employs dozens of hundreds). The US Government could simply have issued more work visas and enforced the rules more closely, but why do that when your buddies can charge sub-minimum wage and stiff their employees on the paycheck whenever they feel like it without fear of repercussion? Instead they wink and nod, punishing the immigrants occasionally, but rarely (if ever) touching the businesses who KNEW they were employing illegals.

It's like ignoring the drug dealers and traffickers for decades, then suddenly deciding drug USERS are a scourge who must be punished.

@newtboy
you were not the only one who put me on the defensive for supporting chis hedges.
so if you feel singled out,i apologize.

the point of this post is put into light an adored spokesperson for the left,and a commentator who is also left leaning (and many of his upvoted videos can be found on the sift) to make a point.

and by your comment,you are struggling to reconcile the two.
but you DID reconcile,and you did so by giving maddow a tacit pass and condemning kyle for being a "complete bombastic liar".

when the truth is:
they both are...kinda..sorta..

they both are approaching,and making their points by using biased and slanted data to influence you,and i for that matter,into adopting their viewpoint.

these are not outright and pernicious lies.they are lies that serve a purpose and i find maddows far more egregious,because it is far more subtle..and you appear to have bought it.

she did so by using the innocuous word "might",yet her inferrence cannot be mistaken.they call it the "dog whistle".this is a wink and a nod that those dirty ruskies own our new president.

wink wink...nudge nudge..know what i mean?

now kyle is not exactly lying either.
he is using russias reaction to the new deployment from putin himself.who has stated that there was an agreement that there would be no new encroachment after the GDR,but that simply reveals the cleverness and political saavy of putin.

the real truth is this:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

or is it?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
from 2009?

maybe this is the truth?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html
from 2016.

well,personally i am going with the LAtimes and der spiegel.
brookings is a right wing think tank with deep tentacles in the pentagon and DoD.

but CNN reports that poland LOVES the new troops:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/14/europe/poland-us-troops-nato-welcome/

look,
while i will agree that putin is a vicious thug,who murders political opponents and tortures dissidents.that he is ruthless and relentless political player.

i do not see any evidence of russian hacking influencing our elections,nor do i see a new russian empire pushing for those cold war expansionism days.

the only entity/country i see pushing for expansion and a renewal of the cold war..is us..the pentagon and the department of defense,and those juicy juicy defense contracts!

i feel my time on the sift is coming to a close.
having to defend my admiration for a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent and author is just...weird.

at least i know i am biased,but i do my best to self-correct.

Perhaps in a nod to the original broken star ship Lawrence will ask if it would help if she got out and pushed.

Yes, he's way off base IMO. For instance, the "head nod tremor" he mentions is CLEARLY not a tremor, it's a deliberate head nod. Tremors are uncontrollable, randomly timed spastic shaking, not slow, deliberate, large movements. We would have seen them during the debates, or any speech, and they would be clearly non deliberate movements.
What you would expect to see is uncontrolled hand/arm tremors, almost certain in someone who has Parkinson's that would make her legs weak and/or cause falling. Even M. J. Fox still walks around without help publicly.
My mother was diagnosed less than a year ago, and she has constant hand tremors, but she still walks miles daily with no leg weakness, even after spinal surgery. I get that it presents differently in different people, but his observations and conclusions are ridiculous based on my experience.
The very idea that he might publicly diagnose her based on the video evidence he provided is almost malpractice, and is certainly biased.
I wonder what he says about Trumps Emperor Palpatine eyes? Surely they're an indicator of something much worse than Parkinson's.

With all the cameos of Bongo throughout the years, I often wonder if we'll ever get an Akbar and Jeff nod.
....does anybody have any idea what I'm saying?

No nods to John Carpenter?

@newtboy and @ForgedReality
First up, I'm not saying I like Hillary, but let's be real here; Trump is much, much worse.

Hillary's a liar and a felon (citation needed, btw)?
Trump wants to bring back torture, to close the country to Muslims and deliberately bomb people's families. Yeah, he might not get to do any of that, but the fact that he WANTS to is fucking terrifying.
So, yes, she's undoubtedly the lesser of two evils.

As for voting for someone other than Hillary or Trump, as far as I'm aware, right now, there aren't any other candidates announced (assuming Hillary gets the Dem nomination, which she will, as I already explained because numbers).

A quick google doesn't show any other third party candidates (although it did reveal that Roseanne Barr once ran!) for this year. Bernie has said nothing about running as an independent, so right now your options are almost certainly Trump or Clinton.

But let's say for the sake of argument that Hillary gets the dem nod and Bernie decides to run as an independent.

Now in a sane political system, I would absolutely advocate voting for your favourite candidate, but the US election system is so fundamentally broken that voting for Bernie would hand Trump the election. That's the reality.

@Baristan
"Voting your conscience and losing to Trump is far better!!! Eventually a third party can form and whittle away at the two sided party. "

No, that doesn't happen. *related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained

A third party rises up, splits the vote of it's nearest rival and then disappears over the next couple of election cycles.

Your voice is already inconsequential. The US badly needs election reform.

It SUCKS, and by FSM, I really hope I'm wrong. Maybe Bernie will somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but it's just really unlikely.

But above all, you cannot elect Trump. If you really think he wouldn't be worse than Hillary, then I'm sorry, but you're fucking delusional.

Look, I REALLY wanted Bernie to win. I even checked if there was some way I could donate to his campaign as a non-US citizen. But it didn't happen. You (plural, US voters, especially democrats) had your chance and y'all done fucked it up and now you have to live with the choices you've made.

Man, the glory of 90s pc gaming . . . Quake and Descent were what I grew up on.
Also, it's cool to see Warsow get a nod in the end there. Still my favorite modern arena shooter!

I dunno about his comments on Trump making "sexist remarks" about Hillary.

Trump says that the only thing she has going for her (why she gets votes) is being a woman. Is that sexist? Yeah, probably. He says that her approval ratings are low, even among women. Is that hypocritical, considering his own numbers with women? Sure.

But is either of those statements actually *wrong*? I think that is much less clear cut.

McCain chose Palin as his running mate in 2008 for precisely one reason: she was a woman, and he and the GOP at large were terrified that Hillary (who seemed unstoppable at the time) would get the Democratic nod and then women would vote for her en masse due to some sort of "vagina solidarity" effect. In other words, the only thing Palin had going for her was being a woman. Is it sexist to say that? Maybe, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Hillary is admittedly a vastly more legitimate candidate than Palin was, but I think there is a certain degree of truth to the suggestion that being female is a pretty significant part of why she's getting the push from Democrat elites. And it is just as insulting for the Democratic elites to think that Hillary can benefit from "vagina solidarity" as it was for the GOP to think that about Palin.

I think that the GOP is in full-on panic mode, and doesn't care about legitimacy / shot at winning for this election.

They (the party elites) will do absolutely everything they can to prevent Trump from getting enough delegates to lock up the nomination. Hence Colorado and Wyoming. Those actions make it seem like they prefer Cruz, but actually they dislike him close to as much as they hate Trump.

Although it is still mathematically possible for Cruz (559 delegates) to get enough delegates to lock up the nomination (1237 needed), realistically it is out of reach (826 still available). Trump (756 delegates), on the other hand, could well manage it. So, the GOP strategy is to avoid that at all costs by encouraging people to vote for Cruz or Kasich in primaries, or even better to encourage more state GOP offices to hold a smoke-filled room convention that grants all the delegates to #NeverTrump instead of even bothering to let people vote.

If they manage that, the contested national convention will get ugly. They (GOP elites) would turn on Cruz instantly -- cast aside. In any other election cycle they would have turned on him already, but with juggernaut Trump, they have to use him to get to the contested convention.

So the question becomes who if not Trump or Cruz? Who will the GOP try to push in? I think that right now, they aren't as worried about answering that question as they are about trying to get there. That being said, they have some options:

Mitt Romney was their first thought. He took some tentative steps towards playing along with the GOP plans, failed to generate any excitement, and has since faded back into relative obscurity. But he remains an option.

Next up was Paul Ryan. A lot of the GOP see him as the future of the party; the "great white hope". There was a flurry of activity making it seem like he was going to take up the flag, but has since denied that he would be interested in or even accept getting the nod. However, he was cagey and close to as vocal against getting the nod to be speaker of the house, and then accepted that. You never know.

Kasich would be another option. He's relatively benign, and wouldn't offend many more of the republican base than the GOP is already ready and willing to offend in order to prevent Trump (and to a lesser extent Cruz).


Of those, I tend to think that Romney is the most likely choice for the GOP in the end. I think it would be extremely stupid to foist "future of the party" Ryan into this election, which would certainly taint his political future. Kasich makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- as long as the GOP is willing to go to these great lengths to keep Trump out they might as well just own the illegitimacy of it, shoot the moon, and hand pick someone that a) they have complete control over, and b) has nothing to lose in terms of political future. Voila, Mitt Romney.


I also don't think that the GOP will just throw in the towel if Trump locks down the number of delegates needed for the nomination. I'm sure they already have some last-ditch, scorched earth preliminary plans in place for that contingency.

However, I think that they essentially already have thrown in the towel with regards to the election in general. At least to a sufficient degree that they don't give a rats ass about the chances for whoever is the republican nominee winning. That's a *distant* priority behind NOT TRUMP, among other things. Which is pretty stupid, because the likely nomination of Hillary on the democrat side gives them what should be a *golden* opportunity to steal the election. IF they could come up with a vaguely tolerable candidate ... which they won't.

Sadly, it happens to most of the actors that get tied to long term sequels. Only a few manage to break out of it, usually because they take other roles similar to the ones they had, they were already famous before the role, or they are just really good actors.

I mean, think about the original Star Wars trilogy, other than Harrison Ford the rest of the cast kind of disappeared; although I guess you could give Mark Hamill a nod for his voice acting work later on.