https://media.giphy.com/media/IDGNYvFLkJKLK/giphy...

Here's the truth - Blockbuster's early DVD-to-home delivery service was BETTER than Netflix's, and with their nationwide network of stores you could return them anywhere AND rent more movies when you were out and about.

Netflix's early streaming options were, to be honest, kind of lacking. They were B-movies, old TV, and nothing terribly popular.

But, they proved the validity of the product model, so when the studios started relenting and offered up their content for streaming, Netflix was already positioned to launch that content right away, whereas Blockbuster was not.

To put it another way, Netflix was a technology company and Blockbuster was a retail company. When the market shifted, Netflix was primed to take advantage of it, while Blockbuster had to start from scratch, and in technology whoever gets there first usually wins.

Ohio Man is definitely a thing.

I got my first Pfizer stabbing this morning.

I'm wearing my Iron Man helmet around the house in the hopes that my superpower is "I'm rich."

She's going to come back with a nose ring, a dog-eared copy of A People's History of the United States, and wearing a Bernie 2024 t-shirt.

Seriously though, that's great news. Congrats.

That wouldn't surprise me. I mean, the whole exercise is trying to pry the truth out of a bunch of people that are literally invested in the truth not coming out. The constant red herrings (Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn, Roger Stone, etc.) make it even more obvious.

Here's my theory: Q started as a LARP by some dipshit on 4chan. The Watkins' watched it go viral, stole the account, and have been posting as Q ever since. Q is basically the only reason the site still exists, because without it the site would just be a cesspool of hate. They kept the LARP going and inadvertently spawned a political movement based on bilking the smoothest of the smooth-brained out of the last of their Social Security checks, supported by an ecosystem of slightly less smooth-brained content creators that monetized it.

No. But throwing a giant pile of money at good candidates, and then feeding those candidates into a meat grinder to lose elections, is how you end up broke and still losing elections.

The model for a post-losing election candidate should be Stacey Abrams. She got screwed over in 2018, built an organization, and delivered for Democrats in 2020. Now she's in a position to run again and win.

If a Democratic candidate is serious about affecting change in a purple or red state, then they're going to have to start from the ground up, outside the state-level party (because the state level parties are ass. That means building an organization, staffing it, doing the work, and then when the infrastructure is in place, take a swing for the fences.

This, incidentally, is why I don't take the Green or Libertarian Parties seriously - they don't do the work.

So, unless Charles Booker has been busy for the last two years building an organization to register, organize, and turn out enough Democrats in Kentucky to make a run for Senate plausible (say, within 3-5 points), then he might as well start a bonfire in his backyard and livestream throwing $80m in singles into it, because that will be more entertaining and a better use of money than trying to beat an incumbent Republican senator in one of if not the most Republican state in the country.

I mean, are we expecting something different? Booker couldn't beat McGrath in a primary in 2020, who went on to get shellacked by McConnell, who's even more disliked than Paul.

Good for him for trying, but Kentucky isn't exactly purple.

I fail to see a problem here.

I'm looking forward to watching him flush $80 million down the drain and losing to Rand Paul by twenty points.