#that would be poetic justice!!

[thelordsoftherings]

What if Vex gets the killing blow on Ripley with the arrow she got from Percy 👀

[rhysuje]

Frame redraw! Salim saving Jason from the spear.

(only one of many times these two save each other)

https://ko-fi.com/rhysuje

[gonnadosomethingwmylife]

I wonder if it haunts Peter that Neal did worse criminal acts for him and the FBI than he ever did as thief

[bisclavret]

like many who have suffered at the hands of bbc merlin before me, i recently indulged in a thought experiment in which i outlined my own version of seasons 3-5 that stay thematically and tonally in line with the show (except they're less fucking stupid). but then i quickly realized that focusing on details is pointless: all you need is to solve the one Big Problem the show has, and the rest will follow. the problem in question? ✨morgana✨

i like the first two seasons. s1 achieves what it sets out to do and has fun while doing it, and s2, while flawed, sets up a ton of potential that the following seasons unfortunately squander, beginning with the insidious season 3. you can only distract me with cute knights and goblins and fart jokes for so long before i start seeing through you, evil, evil season of television.

my hypothesis is that if the writers had crafted s3 morgana into anything more sympathetic than a violent half-alive poltergeist that can never be reasoned with because she's suddenly terminally off her rocker, everything would've fallen into place. a sympathetic morgana would've made real, valid arguments against uther (and arthur) that wouldn't just be the ramblings of a woman possessed. her betrayal of arthur would have stemmed from her feeling increasingly morally superior to him because of his complacency in the face of their father's tyranny. under morgause's guidance she would stop believing that arthur is capable of change, and the whole point would be that she might actually be right. arthur would have to actively try and prove her wrong, instead of getting praised for doing the bare minimum because the bar is on the floor.

furthermore, morgana's prophetic dream about arthur and gwen becoming king and queen and her decision to prevent this however she can is a direct parallel to merlin learning about that same prophecy and making it happen by any means necessary. merlin's desires about his and arthur's futures are subtextually fueled by gay love and devotion, so why couldn't morgana's be? why couldn't she properly express her bitterness that arthur gets to be with gwen in a way she can't "took gwen away" from her, instead of suddenly declaring that gwen is nothing more than a servant, after two seasons of demonstrating again and again that she loves, values, and respects gwen more than anyone else in that godforsaken castle?

following this, an angry and emotionally volatile but still sensible morgana asking gwen to stay by her side during the coup of the castle in the s3 finale and gwen going behind her back to help arthur and the knights would've hurt like a bitch. double-sided betrayal! gwen having a real plot! the proper beginnings of a toxic yuri that would shape a generation!

then there's the utter hubris of having morgana shoot arrows at the same civilians she worried herself sick over for 2 seasons — even morgan, her medieval counterpart that was rooted in every sexist trope in existence, doesn't just go around killing senselessly but instead has (often petty!) personal vendettas against gwen, arthur, and the knights. morgana had every right to be sick of the pretensions around chivalry in camelot (she was always quick to mock it, even in s1), and to lash out at the knights and soldiers after years of feeling powerless in a castle full of armed men that blindly followed her oppressor. the show conveniently forgets that morgana was victimized as a woman as well as a sorcerer those first 2 seasons.

but like i said, this is not just about morgana. allowing her to remain a real and multifaceted character even as she betrays everyone in pursuit of her ambitions would've given the rest of the core four more interesting conflict to work with: merlin because he would have to experience real consequences to his actions, arthur because he would watch his sister go against his father (and his knights, and his birthright) and experience some actual internal dilemmas about it, and gwen because she would be forced to choose between morgana and arthur without the pretense that it's an obvious or easy choice for her to make.

even morgause and gaius would come off more interesting as mentors: neither one inherently evil or inherently good, both jaded by events that happened before our protagonists were even born, both heavily influencing morgana and merlin into fulfilling roles that they think are appropriate, but that morgana and merlin may not have chosen for themselves had they not been under their care.

you get the gist. if the show followed its own setup, morgana's mistakes wouldn't lie in cheap and senseless acts of violence but in alienating the people she loves because she is too hurt and jaded to trust them. meanwhile, everybody else would feel guilt over "failing" her and yet they would be too caught up in their own (sometimes flawed!) beliefs of right and wrong to truly see her point of view.

arthur would convince himself it was sorcery that corrupted her. merlin would know that isn't true but he wouldn't be able to argue without confessing everything, which is the defining conflict between him and morgana and it's cheapened when she's just an evil witch caricature and merlin is framed as inherently virtuous in contrast. gwen, too, would become a more active participant in her own life by choosing arthur over morgana and choosing to rule camelot with him instead of just waiting politely to see where things go.

and, of course, uther's downfall and death would be quick, final, and completely earned — when and why did the show even decide he of all people was the sympathetic villain, anyway?

lastly, and perhaps controversially, i think morgana should've learned merlin's true identity by season 4. her being the first of the main characters to find out makes perfect sense considering their shared history and their interconnected and mirrored arcs. even the show seems to agree, considering she does find out a little before arthur. but the narrative itself tried pointing flashing neon arrows towards this way earlier — there is a whole entire episode in s4 where merlin being emrys is repeatedly spelled out for morgana and she still isn't allowed to see it. that episode makes her look like the stupidest person to ever live, which is pretty funny im not gonna lie, but also another frustrating thing in the endless string of frustrating things that make up this show.

morgana learning that merlin has magic would've transformed the source of merlin's anxiety from a crippling fear of being outed someday to the crippling fear of knowing she could out him at any moment. this would make him want to beat her to the punch (perhaps he'd consider killing her for a minute and decide against it because she isn't a cartoonishly insane evil person in my version of events) and maybe he would even feel some tentative excitement at the idea of coming clean, now that it seems inevitable. after all, he always intended to tell arthur eventually! and i think gaius would have to admit outright that he does not want merlin to tell arthur he has magic because he, gaius, simply cannot risk such a gamble. it would be so interesting to see gaius and merlin clash and disagree once it becomes obvious that it's not merlin that isn't ready for the reveal, it's gaius. delicious!

with morgana's knowledge looming, things would inevitably spiral into a magic reveal by the end of season 4. i picture this season as an absolute mess of miscommunication between everyone at camelot, which is, y'know, canon. growing increasingly cunning and vengeful, morgana would use this tension to her advantage, destabilizing the court from the outside while she creates alliances with other sorcerers outside of camelot (instead of living alone in a hovel for no reason — morgana le fay i'm sorry i'm so sorry they gave you agravaine instead of your all-female entourage oh my god).

and here's where the events would change beyond recognition (aka here's where the meta becomes the fanfic i refuse to write). picture it with me: a militia of sorcerers infiltrates camelot and arthur and gwen have to set aside their differences (assuming gwen kissing lancelot and arthur overreacting happens, which it should) for the good of the kingdom as well as for love. picture high priestess morgana in her element, side by side with a bunch of misfit sorcerers that aren't so easily vilified, chopping down camelot's soldiers and knights and assuredly making their way to the newly-minted king.

then, just as it starts to seem that all hope is lost, in swoops merlin (the actual merlin, not his old fart disguise) on dragonback (kilgharrah hates morgana so much i know his sexist ass would stoop to anything to stop her)!!! imagine merlin showing off the extent of his powers in front of everyone and preventing the sorcerers from getting any further, declaring loud and clear that camelot is protected by him, by emrys. imagine that display of power alone being enough to send everyone home.

imagine the loyalties clearly drawn: merlin on arthur's side, morgana on the sorcerers'. imagine arthur, feeling confused and betrayed by everyone at this point, banishing merlin despite everything he's done for him in the angstiest, most emotionally dysregulated scene the show had ever put to screen. imagine merlin starting season 5 free at last but very lonesome, an embittered dragonlord like his father. imagine the absolute mess camelot would become without him, even with gwen — now queen guinevere — there to pick up the slack. imagine arthur actually earning merlin back, finally growing into his role as king as he does so. imagine the reunion.

all this and more could've been not just possible but inevitable if morgana was allowed to remain a complex character that is neither inherently good nor inherently evil: it was undeniably the biased and one-note treatment of morgana's downfall by the writers that set the precedent for literally everything else that happened after merlin chose to poison her. the show wouldn't have even had to jeopardize its tone or the monster-of-the-week vibe, all it would've had to do is admit that even the "good guys" are capable of mistakes and what makes them good is the ability to feel remorse and change for the better. (as opposed to uther, who was miles beyond redemption since way before the pilot and deserved to lose everything and die alone. OBVIOUSLY???)

in a world where morgana remains multifaceted and sympathetic, mordred would get a better arc as well, so if we really wanted to, we could still end on the same tragic note that the show ended on. with so much harm inflicted onto so many innocent people by the pendragons for so long (including mordred and the many druids and sorcerers that raised him), it could realistically end up being a little too late for anything more than one shining glimpse of king arthur and the sorcerer merlin's short-lived golden age before fate catches up to them. glimpsing that reality just to immediately lose it would've been far more satisfying and far more tragic than whatever the writers thought they were doing with all that pointless carrot-dangling.

and finally, an ending in line with morgana's new and improved arc. in this version, rather than bleeding out on the forest floor alone, she would channel the morgan le fay we know from the legends: sobered up by the reality of her brother dying, she would use her high priestess status (and perhaps also her pendragon status) to be granted passage over to avalon alongside arthur on the boat — a one-way ride — just to make sure he gets there safely. this is her penance for the harm she has caused, the same way arthur's penance is to die and leave the true ruler of camelot (gwen) behind to achieve everything he was too slow and indecisive to build while he still had time.

merlin's penance, then, would be to stay behind and watch them cross over without him, waiting and waiting and waiting until they come back or until he can finally join them. which is a bit fucking harsh if i'm honest, so i'd at least make it slightly more faithful to the legends by having him return as an old man and letting him take a long nap under a tree by the shore, his body slowly enveloped by vines like the cobwebbed fisher king in 3x08, never fully sure if he's dreaming or if there really are strange shapes fading in and out of the fog over the lake. still tragic, but nevertheless a little more open-ended and whimsical than [TRUCK NOISES] THE END!

[leclerc-s]

i genuinely think the funniest thing that could happen was if charles overtook norris in the drivers championship because they’ve been yapping about this “intense” championship battle between norris and max only for charles ‘one-stop wonder’ leclerc to end up p2 in the championship

[sunshinemakesmesleepy]

I love that Murph’s secret mission throughout the final arc of campaign 3, has been to seduce Callie with one of his many npcs, so that she can FINALLY move on from glen, and Callie just REFUSES to take the bait like at all, bc she’s all bout that single girl era, and only into ppl who are slightly toxic for her, but murph as the lawful good paladin he is REFUSES to play into that

So long story short, we have a dm who is DESPERATELY trying to seduce his irl wife of over 10 years’ PC, in an effort to encourage character growth, but the wife is exclusively attracted to city pidgeons and hot ppl who are slightly toxic, so he keeps failing to get her hooked on anybody other than the singular npc he made specifically to be hot, toxic, and slightly pathetic.

And tbh I love it. I need more.

[markantonys]

egwene leaving the meeting with tuon to return to "where gawyn waited for her" is so funny because why in god's name would the amyrlin's warder not have been plastered right to her side to guard her during a face-to-face meeting with the Head Channeler Enslaver? especially when mat and a bunch of other people were in attendance? where is gawyn's invite? why did he walk up to the meeting with egwene and tell her how much he doesn't like the idea of working with the seanchan, disappear, and then get collected by her at the end?

i can only conclude that he was narratively forbidden from attending because sanderson knew that there is no universe in which gawyn would not go apeshit and bloodknife tuon for talking to egwene like that. egwene is levelheaded enough to keep her cool in the face of tuon's shit, but gawyn is 30% impulse, 70% loving egwene, and 0% self-preservation, so he Would Not Hesitate. so sanderson decided to solve that "problem" by just quietly removing gawyn from the premises until tuon is gone (and mat too, because you know gawyn would've beat mat's ass for that gross line about how he's going to spank egwene if she doesn't start being civil to her former enslavers). i say "problem" because gawyn bloodknifing tuon would actually be the opposite of a problem, and in fact would be the sexiest thing done by anybody ever in all of WOT.

[redlyriumidol]

everyone talks about solas+anders+morrigan, nobody talks about the TRUE and most DEVASTATING betrayal in dragon age:

the way my heart was absolutely shattered. the way i've still not recovered from this and perhaps never will. he was everything to me, the love of my life and he threw it all away like it meant nothing

[mariacallous]

Immigration and economics loom large on the campaign trail and in the minds of voters, but America’s foreign entanglements could well decide the election.

The Democratic Party is desperately trying to keep debate about the conduct of Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon contained to an intramural row over policy, with marginal electoral impact. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s supporters are engaged in a concerted effort to exploit divisions within the Republican Party to defeat former President Donald Trump.

It’s unclear if either will succeed. But as a result, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza are having outsize impact on key blocs of voters in several swing states, according to voters and analysts interviewed by Rolling Stone.

While both the left and the right are divided over various aspects of foreign policy, the most notable gap between majority public opinion and a candidate’s position is with Trump and his antipathy toward Ukraine.

Despite the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump inexplicably said in a podcast released last week that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “should never have let that war start. That war is a loser.”

Such views may cost him the election against Vice President Kamala Harris.

“This is the most defining and potentially divisive political issue in the most consequential election in modern times,” says Paul Rieckhoff, a political activist who served in Iraq as a U.S. Army infantry officer, who describes himself as an independent. “I don’t know if there is a single issue where [Trump and Harris] are more clearly different than Ukraine.”

While statistical models that attempt to predict voter behavior have, perhaps, proven as close to pure science as ornithomancy or astrology, it is clear that this election — like all others for decades — will be decided in a handful of swing states, likely by the narrowest of margins.

In some of those states, voters who in the pre-Trump era formed the moderate Republican center are now abandoning their party’s candidate — and they are doing so over Ukraine.

“Ninety percent of it is because of his ridiculous foreign policy,” says John Feltz, a 58-year-old software engineer in Michigan. Feltz says he is a Republican who refuses to vote for Trump. “He has no discernible principle that I can see, and that’s what the Republican party used to have: principles.”

The vice president’s campaign is pouring resources into attracting voters like Feltz, particularly in Pennsylvania. Last week, Harris began a tour of the battleground state aimed at disaffected Republican voters. She’s particularly hoping to attract backers of former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, whose long-shot bid to secure the GOP nomination showcased her hawkish foreign policy views.

During the only presidential debate between Harris and Trump, held in Philadelphia in September, the vice president took aim at a bellwether group particularly motivated by the war in Ukraine: Polish-Americans.

“[Russian President Vladimir] Putin would be sitting in Kyiv with his eyes on the rest of Europe, starting with Poland,” Harris told Trump. “And why don’t you tell the 800,000 Polish-Americans right here in Pennsylvania how quickly you would give up, for the sake of favor and what you think is a friendship — with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you for lunch?”

Democrats view Ukraine as an effective lever to move swing-state voters as the issue hits a nerve with many moderate Republicans. Trump’s stance on the war finds resistance even in the deep red South.

Alan Nummy, a 57-year-old EMT from Elmore County, Alabama, says he voted Republican all his life, including for Trump in 2016 and 2020 “with reservations.” This year, Nummy says he “can’t hold his nose any longer,” and will write in “Nikki Haley�� in November because of Trump’s lack of commitment on helping Ukraine and “kicking Russia’s butt.”

“I’m probably 90 percent in line with the policies of his administration, maybe even higher than that,” the Biloxi native assures Rolling Stone. “But I can’t vote for him now because he will not commit to assisting a nation in destroying one of the two largest political enemies of the U.S. — China’s number one, Russia’s number two.”

Ukraine is an obvious vector of attack, because it is an issue where Trump is at odds with the general electorate.

More than 62 percent of Americans say their sympathies lie with Ukraine — including 76 percent of Democrats, but also 58 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of independents, according to research by the University of Maryland.

According to the same study, the number of Americans comfortable supporting Ukraine for “as long as it takes” has been increasing — from 38 percent in March 2023 to 48 percent in August. A separate study by the University of Chicago and The Associated Press conducted in mid-September shows that people who think the U.S. is providing “too much” support to Ukraine has dropped from 52 percent last year, to 34 percent this year — 60 percent think the aid is “too little” or “the right amount.”

Contrast this with Israel’s response to the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas and subsequent war in Gaza, where Americans are far more divided. According to the University of Chicago poll, when asked which party they most sympathized with, 25 percent said Israel and 15 percent said the Palestinians — 31 percent are sympathetic to “both equally,” while 26 percent to “neither.”

Further data from the Institute for Global Affairs, a research nonprofit attached to the risk consultancy firm Eurasia Group, indicates regardless of political affiliation, 22 percent of Americans believe the U.S. should end military support for Israel, while 23 percent think it should support Israel unconditionally. The rest of Americans want to see continued military support, but with conditions attached: 34 percent with a cease-fire, and 21 percent dependent on humanitarian aid access.

This lack of consensus on Israel-Palestine is why it has been easy for Harris to simply dodge tough questions about U.S. policy toward the conflict. Her opponent’s other faults — specifically his racism and anti-Muslim bigotry — help explain why it is difficult for motivated Democrats who support Palestine to categorically reject their party’s nominee: They want a shift in policy, not a Trump victory.

“We’re asking for her to commit to enforcing our laws, our international laws on friend and foe alike, which is what we do to Ukraine, which is what we do to everybody else,” Ruwa Romman, a Palestinian-American who serves on Georgia’s state legislature, told NPR on the outskirts of the DNC in Chicago in August. “And that continues to be, and has been, the ask all the time.”

Still, rifts are growing over the Biden administration’s handling of Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. Arab-Americans, who make up an influential voting bloc in the swing state of Michigan that has traditionally supported Democrats, are now evenly divided on their preferred candidate, according to data from the Arab American Institute.

“In our thirty years of polling Arab-American voters, we have not witnessed anything like the role that the war on Gaza is having on voter behavior,” James Zogby, president of the organization, wrote. “The year-long unfolding genocide in Gaza has impacted every component sub-group within the community.”

History suggests voters motivated by Gaza may find little daylight between the two candidates after the election. Trump — who in 2017 recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel — is fond of claiming, “I did more for Israel than anybody,” and has shown little sympathy toward the Palestinian cause. But while the Biden administration — and by extension the Harris campaign  — has at times quietly leaked criticism of Israel’s actions, it has displayed little interest in going to the mat with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over humanitarian aid access or withholding military assistance.

Unlike Gaza, where the two parties differ mostly in how they talk about supporting Israel, there is a deep divergence on Ukraine policy — and that extends to within the Republican Party between MAGA loyalists and GOP hawks.

While most Republicans supported Ukraine at the beginning of the war, as the presidential campaign accelerated so too did discontent with U.S. policy. That’s evident in research showing half of Republicans now think Washington is supplying “too much” aid to Ukraine.

That split has forced GOP politicians to voice mealy-mouthed reservations about aid, primarily focusing on the monetary cost. 

“I don’t have an appetite for further Ukraine funding, and I hope it’s not necessary,” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) said recently. “If President Trump wins, I believe that he actually can bring that conflict to a close … I think he’ll call Putin and tell him that this is enough.”

Trump running mate J.D. Vance, who in 2022 declared “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another,” has embraced a skeptical role in line with Trump when it comes to Kyiv.

“The problem here vis-à-vis Ukraine is, America doesn’t make enough weapons, Europe doesn’t make enough weapons, and that reality is far more important than American political will or how much money we print and then send to Europe,” Vance said in a visit to the Munich Security Conference in February, where he skipped a meeting with Zelensky, the Ukrainian president.

After becoming Trump’s vice presidential candidate, Vance clarified his stance, describing to an interviewer in September his vision for an end to the war: “What it probably looks like is the current line of demarcation between Russia and Ukraine, that becomes like a demilitarized zone.”

Trump, meanwhile, has promised to end the war “in 24 hours” if he is elected — although he hasn’t provided specific details. But such musings throw into sharp focus his history of undermining Ukraine’s security for personal political advantage.

In 2019, Trump tried to pressure newly inaugurated Zelensky to investigate a number of conspiracies and tie them to Joe Biden, threatening to withhold military aid if he did not. A phone call in which Trump made the demands was reported by a whistleblower on the National Security Council, and it formed the core of his first impeachment effort — an attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss resulted in the second.

While the House approved two articles of impeachment, Trump was acquitted by the Senate over the Ukraine affair in a February 2020 vote that split along party lines — with Sen. Mitt Romney being the sole Republican to break with his colleagues. Four-and-a-half years later, and the sordid episode continues to lurk in the background, adding to an uncomfortable atmosphere when Trump met Zelensky last month in New York City. 

“We have a very good relationship, and I also have a very good relationship, as you know, with President Putin. And I think if we win, we’re going to get it resolved very quickly,” Trump said in a press conference ahead of the meeting.

“I hope we have more good relations between us,” was Zelensky’s tepid response.

The stench of the Ukraine affair permeates Trump’s legacy on foreign affairs — especially given his repeated and consistent praise of Putin, such as calling the dictator “savvy” and a “genius” on the eve of the 2022 invasion.

Such statements, and Trump’s affinity for a dictator responsible for starting a war that may have already killed more than half a million people, embarrass many Republicans. They also provide fodder for his opponents within the GOP.

“Trump is siding with a dictator who kills his political opponents,” Haley said in South Carolina while still running for the Republican nomination. “Trump sided with an evil man, over our allies who stood with us on 9/11.”

Haley has, of course, ultimately kissed the ring and closed ranks behind Trump. But not every Republican is ready to cast aside principles for their party’s candidate.

Republican Voters Against Trump, a Super PAC started by a group of GOP dissidents and funded by the billionaire venture capitalist Reid Hoffman, has churned out ads and social media posts featuring Republicans talking about Ukraine.

“Why I am extremely against Trump now is his position in Ukraine,” says one ad featuring a voter in Georgia identified as Nikita, a Ukrainian American. “I’m doing everything in my power to make sure he doesn’t get elected.”

The Super PAC’s founder, Republican strategist Sarah Longwell, says it is spending as much as $45 million to persuade “center-right voters, right-leaning, independent, soft GOP voters, to vote against Trump.”

While such groups are focused on siphoning votes away from the former president, some of Ukraine’s supporters are hedging their bets. They hope to bring the Republican Party back into line with majority opinion, and to do so they are taking aim at two traditionally conservative demographics: veterans and evangelical Christians.

“Republicans by and large support Ukraine. The question you really have to ask is: ‘Who does not support Ukraine?’” says Rieckhoff, who hosts a podcast called Independent Americans and has a long history of political activism. In 2012, Rolling Stone included him in a list of “Leaders Who Get Things Done.”

“People need to understand that J.D. Vance and Donald Trump are in a very radical minority that undermines American national security,” he adds.

The nonprofit Rieckhoff founded in 2004 — Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, more commonly known as IAVA — was essential to the passage of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill, which paid for Vance’s undergraduate studies at Ohio State University. Earlier this year Rieckhoff helped start a new group: American Veterans for Ukraine, or AVU. The goal is to shape American policy toward Ukraine.

“This is the same crew who tried to get people out of Iraq, and out of Afghanistan. It’s a veteran’s Underground Railroad … We want to use our skills and our networks to support and defend democracy,” he says. Although the U.S. has provided billions of dollars in aid to Kyiv and “there is significant philanthropy helping people in Ukraine,” he says, “there is comparatively very little advocacy and lobbying.”

He thinks the lack of behind-the-scenes politicking created the crisis earlier this year, when for nearly six months Republicans in Congress blocked the provision of military aid to Ukraine, taking a cue from Trump.

The former president and his acolytes in Congress were vocal in opposing more money for Kyiv. Despite the dire warnings of the national security and foreign policy establishment, the aid was blocked — with disastrous effects for Ukraine’s defense.

It wasn’t until Johnson met a Ukrainian evangelical named Serhiy Haidarzhy in April that the newly minted speaker of the House experienced a Damascene conversion over aid. With Johnson’s backing, Republicans swept away the opposition of MAGA militants, approving a $61 billion Ukraine funding package in a bipartisan show of force.

That meeting with Johnson wasn’t accidental. Ukraine is actively courting America’s conservative Christian right in the hope of strengthening its bulwark of Republican support should Trump regain power in November.

“Speaker Johnson is a great example. He voted nine out of nine times against Ukraine as a rank-and-file member of Congress. The intelligence briefings gave him the intellectual information to support Ukraine. When he met the Ukrainian evangelicals we brought over, it gave him an emotional and spiritual connection to Ukraine,” says Steven Moore, a 55-year-old GOP operative and Tulsa native, who worked on Capitol Hill for seven years as a Congressional aide — including as chief of staff for former Rep. Pete Roskam, an Illinois Republican.

Moore has a perspective unlike that of most Beltway insiders: After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, he moved to Kyiv and started a nonprofit — one of hundreds of foreigners conducting such grassroots efforts, of varying quality and accountability, that contribute aid to Ukraine’s war effort.

Although he is not a registered lobbyist, he now spends his time networking and connecting Republicans with counterparts in Kyiv. He also works to raise funds for his Ukraine Freedom Project, shooting videos featuring military equipment and sending them to Rotary Clubs across America.

Such outreach is important, Moore says, because “what we find is that for the most part, when you give conservatives accurate information about Ukraine, they come to support Ukraine’s fight for its freedom. Unfortunately, it is difficult to compete with the massive Russian propaganda effort.”

Despite Trump’s claims he can end the war by calling up Putin, any peace deal is outside the power of an American president to accomplish without the cooperation of Ukraine. Ensuring that Kyiv’s calls are picked up in Washington regardless of which candidate sits in the White House is why Ukraine has been trying to build bridges to the GOP.

“I do not see anything surprising if Ukraine is looking for support in all directions,” says Oleksiy Goncharenko, a member of the Verkhovna Rada — Ukraine’s parliament — who is outspoken on foreign affairs.

“Maybe we could have done more, maybe there were mistakes, both with the Republicans and with the Democrats,” concedes Goncharenko. “Our country does not have much experience in promoting itself at such a level. But we welcome the support of the U.S., especially when it comes from both [parties].”

Connecting with American evangelicals has been central to Ukraine’s outreach, as they make up an influential segment of Republicans.

To this end, Zelensky’s government has sought to highlight Russia’s persecution of evangelicals and other religious minorities in the occupied territories under its control. Putin’s regime has kidnapped, tortured, jailed, and even murdered non-Orthodox Christians, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses — regarded as “religious extremists” by Moscow — solely because of their faith, according to findings by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan agency that monitors religious freedom worldwide.

In newly conquered territories in Ukraine, Protestants have paid a terrible price, Moore says, especially evangelical Baptists, who have been singled out for persecution by the Russian military as “American spies.”

“More than half of Republicans identify as evangelical Christians, and 70 percent of evangelical Christians who vote Republican are more likely to support Ukraine when you tell them that Russia is torturing and oppressing Ukrainians like them for their faith,” Moore asserts.

The Zelensky administration has even gone so far as to hold a “National Prayer Breakfast,” similar to the one established in the U.S. in 1953.

The American original is a fixture for Beltway insiders, where global movers and shakers rub shoulders in an informal milieu with U.S. lawmakers, who themselves are keen to be seen by evangelicals as visibly straddling the line between church and state. With as many as 3,500 attendees each year, the event is a clearinghouse for influence-peddling.

When the Zelensky administration decided to begin a similar tradition in Ukraine, GOP activists like Moore hoped it would succeed in attracting the conservative Christian right — and it did.

Rolling Stone attended Ukraine’s first National Prayer Breakfast in June, joined by Zelensky and hundreds of people from multiple religious denominations.

The opening speeches were followed by a prerecorded video address from Speaker Johnson and — much to the surprise of the audience — former Vice President Mike Pence.

Pence’s face suddenly materialized on an array of screens set up around the breakfast hall, his snow-white hair and cold, resolute glare staring out from his pale features. Trump’s former VP delivered a speech praising Ukrainians for their “courage,” reminding the audience of the sacrifices made so that “the blue-and-gold flag still waves over the skies of Ukraine,” as attendees tucked in to their breakfasts and chatted amongst themselves.

“Thank you all for standing with Ukraine … May God bless the people of Ukraine, and freedom-loving people everywhere,” Pence concluded.

Trump’s supporters, of course, erected a gallows and noose while chanting “Hang Mike Pence” during a riot on Jan. 6, 2021, forcing the then-vice president to flee the Capitol.

So while it is unlikely that Pence’s presence at Ukraine’s National Prayer Breakfast persuaded any Trump die-hards to change their vote, the hope was his presence might help convert less extreme conservative skeptics to Kyiv’s cause. And the effort poured into the event shows that when it comes to a new administration’s policy toward Ukraine — whomever is in the White House — its supporters know victory counts on a lot more than November ballots, or even thoughts and prayers.

[where-dreams-dwell]

Daemon Targaryen's Potential (1/2)

I think I can see what they're trying to do with Daemons character of HOTD but there are such better vessels for self exploration and character development that have been squandered.

Season 1 Daemon is (in hindsight) trying to find himself; he's lashing out and fighting wars, he's trying to force Viserys and the world to give him what he wants, he's trying on being a husband and father while being half a world from the rest of his family, and he's finally basking in marrying the woman he loves and creating a family with her. He's a bit all over the place but we can trace the character growth through his actions and decisions.

But in the Season Finale we finally see the cracks in Daemon as a person, and in his relationship with Rhaenyra. These are areas where no pressure has been placed yet and so they didn't realize that when they were tested they would buckle slightly. Its great and engaging TV, and understandable with Daemon's character progression that these areas had not been explored or challenged until that time. And it adds further worries to Rhaenyra's faction as a ruler and a wife that one of her supposed strongest supporters and source of strength isn't actually as secure as previously thought.

Firstly, Daemons sense of self is challenged when he realizes his brother never viewed him as his heir or a legitimate successor to the Iron Throne. Daemon has stated time and again he doesn't want the throne and the narrative supports that, but its likely a small part of him cherished that for a time he was the heir and his brothers successor. To learn that Viserys never thought of him in that way was devastating, and we know this Daemons physically chokes his wife as he learns it. This is the first distance of violence we have seen towards Rhaenyra personally and towards a wife he cares about (he did kill his first wife Rhea but he made it clear he didn't respect or care for her at all, so in Daemons mind this wouldn't have been a shocking action). This reaction, of violence towards someone he has shown in word and deed that he values and loves, is actually quite out of character and emphasizes how shocked and distraught he is at learning of his brothers 'betrayal' of him.

Secondly his sense of self as a husband is challenged when Rhaenyra is laboring to deliver their daughter Visenya. The narrative implies that this is an unexpected and early birth, so no one is expecting it to end well even putting aside the baby's deformities, but Daemon chooses to prioritize the political and logistical aspects of his role as King-Consort and not the personal one. Even when his wife is crying out for him, when his step-son pleads with him to go to her, he still prioritizes the 'duty' of being a leader and husband of the Queen over that of a husband to a wife. We are shown Daemon as a devoted father to Baela and Rhaena, and as a husband to Leana he prioritized her choice and care over that of medical professionals. This change in behavior when a position of leadership or power was included in the mix is an intriguing development in Daemon's attitude as a father and husband.

And finally his self of self as a leader or ruler of men is challenged when it is made clear that while he is valued for his ideas and input, the final decision will rest with his wife as she is Queen. This is both a change of Daemon personally, as at least since their marriage he and Rhaenyra are shown to either be in agreement on all fronts or to make decisions jointly, and also the same situation he was in when Viserys was king; every decision had to be run through his brother. This is a stark wake up call for Daemon that he will not be able to make decisions independently and unilaterally on his own, and his power once again comes as an extension of someone else. Its likely that even if he knew this academically, it is another thing to be living it and especially at a time of crisis.

Daemon then encounters a crisis of faith in Season 2 Ep 1 in that his view of Rhaenyra is fundamentally challenged, both as a ruler and as a person. Rhaenyra's reaction to her sons death is fundamentally different to how Daemon would react if he were in her position, or so he believes, and he thinks less of her as a result of this. Daemon, as a father, would react more violently to his son being killed and when Rhaenyra doesn't he thinks less of her as a parent; in his view this is the wrong way to grieve the loss of a child. Daemon, as a ruler, would react more vindictively and in a retaliatory fashion against those who had taken his child from him and Rhaenyra isn't doing so; in his view this makes her look weak as a ruler, and undermines her ability to rule and so is again the wrong way to be acting. His faith in her as a Queen is crumbling every time she doesn't do as he would if he were in the chair, especially as he views them as so alike and as 'twin flames'; his frustration grows as he is not allowed to act and the one who is allowed isn't doing what he thinks they should.

This isn't to say that Daemon is right or that Rhaenyra is wrong in this; Daemon thinks the way he would react is just 'the right way' to do so and Rhaeny's is the one who councils him that not only is Rhaenyra's reaction to everything both understandable and acceptable (and that she grieved in the same way herself) but that at the end of the day it doesn't matter if Daemon feels he would act differently; he is not the King and never will be so it is pointless to speculate. Rhaenyra is the Queen and so their role is not to try and make her grieve or act differently but to support her actions in that grief.

Daemons actions with Blood and Cheese are a reaction to all of these criseis, of self and of faith, and is Daemon once again acting selfishly and lashing out; only this time the consequences of his actions will be direct and damaging. In reaction to not being able to act without his wife's oversight, in reaction to him feeling Rhaenyra is not acting violently and decisively enough as a ruler and as a mother, Daemon acts both independently and violently, and it immediately backfires. The Greens fumble the bag a bit with the PR opportunity he gives them but his actions could have cost Rhaenyra allies, support, and even eventually the war itself. His selfish actions hurt and undermine Rhaenyra as a ruler, and their relationships is shown to be weaker and more flawed than either of them had thought it to be.

And in that final scene of confrontation it shows that Daemons own actions have always been his downfall, and that again none of his struggles are new information; Rhaenyra was always going to be Queen, Daemon was always going to act as the support to her rule, and yet everything he is doing is eroding her trust and reliance upon him. Time away for him to realize his flaws and re-commit to the life and position that he knowingly chose will make their partnership strong enough to survive the imminent tragedies looming on the (metaphorical) horizon, and make their love feel doomed enough when The Dance reaches it conclusion. That final arc will not hit hard enough if half of the people watching don't truly believe Daemon supports his wife 100% so now is the time to put in the character work and exorcise those doubts.

[ablueberrysky]

W and T spoilers below!

Per the new chapters, I’m thinking the listeners are going to come out and kick ass on the shattered planes with their chasmfiends and established order of Willshapers. Coming to the aid of the Alethi and saving the day!!

[yuribomber]

omg PLEASE

[seriousbrat]

i dont think its fair to say sirius almost murdered a student, he just told snape how to get to the shack, severus did it all by himself he knew that there was a werewolf

yeah, and sirius (very intelligent) had absolutely no way to predict what snape (very obsessed with the marauders) might do with that information

i'm sorry there's just no way it wasn't on purpose, and clearly he didn't regret it later:

[maranull]

got the sunrise scene.

absolutely nothing can rival this romance and the way Lae'zel talks. whoever wrote her popped the hell off

[crybabykiko]

How do you think Nirei likes to fuck? Like what are his favorite positions?

I’m going to be sick *deep inhale*

He’s going to eat you until his jaw locks and he’s going to cum in his pants from the sounds you make alone- he’s literally rutting into the mattress and humping the sheets like a little dog because he just wants to taste you and he just wants to hear you whine like that

but also he is a lover boy and would 100% be into deep stroke missionary like he is trying to fuck his way inside of you so he can live in there- and he likes to be on top so he can watch your tits bounce bc of course he does. Unbeatable stamina tho, people pleaser tendencies so he fucks like he’s got smth to prove but once you let him in he’s not leaving ur stuck with him good luck

[let-us-cultivate-our-garden]

It's abundantly clear that they're not going in this direction but the whole puritanical thing is why I always thought redemption would've been the best way to defeat Belos. Sure if you kill him, you defeat him, but if you force him to admit both that he was wrong the whole time and has done horrible things AND that he is still capable of changing and doing good instead of being doomed to Hell forever, then you defeat his IDEOLOGY. That's much more powerful IMO.

1000% agree with you there, anon. If you simply kill Belos in battle, he will die thinking himself a martyr. If he dies after a complete mental breakdown and realizes that all he did was for nothing, then sure there will be tragedy and some schadenfreude for those who hate the character, but you did nothing to confront the ideology that made Belos in the first place. You just killed a man. You did nothing to actually address where bigotry comes from, or how trauma can deeply warp a person, especially without proper help.

Honestly, the worst form of punishment for Belos is not death or to be eternally trapped somewhere (that idea is ironically enough, a very Christian worldview) but to hold him accountable and to bring true justice. Make him realize that the people he hated for so long had good in them and that they are willing to accept his change of heart if he takes the proper steps to repair what he nearly destroyed (and to also acknowledge that most people may not even want to be anywhere near him but he should still takes steps to atone regardless).

Puritan ideology teaches that people are born sinful and are either predestined for Heaven or Hell and no action in life can change that. What better way to counter that view then to go the opposite route and say that people can change for the better BUT actions must be taken to address and repair the harm done to the community.

Give me restorative justice not retribution!

Unfortunately, the show doesn't really go too deeply into ideologies, it's a very relationship-centered show, which is one of its strengths. But I can't help but think of the missed opportunities of not showing more of Gravesfield and how toxic ideas are grown and cultivated in communities and not from individuals. How much stronger the show would be if it didn't pin all of its evil on one bad dude and if the Boiling Isles had systemic problems that were present before Belos.

Giving Philip a redemption arc would be the ultimate repudiation of Christian fundamentalism because it would break the cycle that allows hatred and bigotry to grow.

Thank you for the ask!