@elonmusk But when the East Asian descendants of railroad workers, miners, sweat shop laborers, and modern sex trafficked victims apply for reparations, they will be told no, because they are not Black.
@elonmusk California governor is appointing judges with no qualifications whose stated goals are to bring DEI to the courtroom. When will you run to end this nonsense?
Thomas has love in abundance. If Sanya bites the bullet, I could see Thomas taking up his Sword, since he needs Hope more than Love. But I think Harry, Marcone, and Nicodemus need Love more than Thomas. I'd only discount Nic because he was offered Love (in the form of
the slaughter of innocents. Which makes me wonder how Amoracchius Chose Michael. But for the people saying Thomas will be its next Wielder: Consider, who needs love the most right now? Thomas, whose love transcends his very nature and keeps him human?
whose bounds to the Denarians were his only ties to the mortal coil, and he gave it all up and all he had left was hope. Fidelacchius Chose Butters when his friends lay broken or dying and his belief in good triumphing over evil was all that stood between evil and
Theory on the Swords: they choose their wielders not because of the traits they exemplify, but because in great moments of darkness, the needs of their wielders are greatest: Esperacchius Chose Sanya when he was enthralled by Magog and Rosanna
Wondering if whoever wins TM18 could theoretically not have worn the hot dog to save for CoC4. Emma is the only one in the running who might not have worn hers, yet...
So Ray is the obvious choice to stand in for Mel if they do a Champion of Champions, but the real answer should be Dai in her netball uniform, and everyone just treats him as if he were Mel, no questions asked.
@elonmusk I would strongly urge you to to consider running for governor of California. California needs your leadership now more than ever and has languished too long under single party rule.
@elonmusk I mean, unless there's something I'm missing, the letter says it's already illegal to do the thing the Speaker says the bill being vetoed would make illegal...? So, and I'm no Congressional expert, I would conjecture the bill actually does something else?