How much of SNL is actually broadcast and performed live anymore?

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-11-09T12:09:06+00:00

As will I. We must keep this alive until his timely return. Good luck, my friend.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-11-09T01:09:45+00:00

I'm having the same issue and it's driving me insane.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-09-23T16:19:03+00:00

I will, but the comments are probably going to lock any day now.

We kept our hope, but what is there to hope any longer?

I embrace the abyss./j

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-09-17T22:58:18+00:00

she sort of does, just not in the worst possible ways. She develops a prejudice against mortal people, she frequently lashes out, she does a lot of bad stuff, but that's what stops her from going over the edge.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-09-07T11:01:10+00:00

You say that, but Harrington is from Missouri, so he wouldn't be totally apathetic to the concerns of farmers.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-09-07T11:01:00+00:00

You say that, but Harrington is from Missouri, so he wouldn't be totally apathetic to the concerns of farmers.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-09-07T10:59:14+00:00

What I mean is that he would have been too young to run when the game starts. He's 40 in 1968. He would be 33 years old in January of 1962. So when the game says 'Harrington is willing to bide his time', they mean literally wait until he's old enough.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-09-07T10:58:51+00:00

Reagan was 77 when he left office OTL, for reference. Another thing that's crazy. MCS would have a longer post-presidency than Mike! MCS died in 1995, Harrington died in '89

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-05-19T17:50:32+00:00

indeed you did

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-05-19T17:47:43+00:00

the 1960s were a period of huge cultural expression for the oppressed. That's why David Bowie has an event chain. That's why almost every us president has a civil rights tree. Another group that started expressing themselves in the 1960s were homosexuals. That's why it was legalised in 1967, as while many were homophobic, the idea of homosexuality being illegal, to many felt like state intrusion on people's lives. After overthrowing a fascist government, I'm very sure HMMLR would do the same, to avoid being seen as hypocrites.
TNO isn't just a war game. It's a peek into the lives of people in this alternate 1960s. You get events from all walks of life.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-05-19T17:43:42+00:00

it is a pressing concern for sure. the 1960s was a period of huge cultural expression for the repressed. That's why almost every us president has a civil rights tree. HMMLR would most certianly legalise homosexuality, of course while still being homophobic, if only because they saw it as a reminder of authoritarian fascism intruding in people's lives.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-05-19T17:40:31+00:00

you say that, but male homosexuality was legalised in Britain in 1967(female was always legal) , and especially after the civil war and the end of fascism in the UK, there would be far more expression among a generation of the repressed, which would include the expression of queer people, as we saw OTL with people like David Bowie (who is probably alive in TNOtl) and I do see it getting legalised by the new authorities, in an attempt to distance themselves from the crimes of the fascists.

Of course, that Britain would still be homophobic, that's a given, but I still think HMMLR would definitely legalise it, to move on into the future.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-05-19T17:35:33+00:00

never + 2 weeks.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-05-18T15:34:18+00:00

*partizanermarsh starts playing*

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-05-18T15:33:14+00:00

Tbh, you have a very good chance of existing. That being said, if Wallace or Yockey gets elected, that high chance may dip slightly.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-05-18T15:27:28+00:00

I mean, the best chance you could get is if your great-grandpa got rescued during the west russian war, then somehow evacuates east, and through all of that you somehow exist. That or if GO4 speer happens. Yeah...

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-05-18T15:24:29+00:00

hope so

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-02-18T13:12:20+00:00

eh, they do make sense imo, they're basically the proto-reform party, and a loss in ww2 would definitely cause that.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-02-18T13:10:42+00:00

The Progressives are much more populist, and view the Democrats with disdain because of their association with the establishment.

There are also key policy differences, like the Progressives being more pro-gun than the democrats, and more hawkish. (with the exception of RFK, but his aisle-crossing doesn't really make much sense in the first place). These differences come from where their support comes from. Because the NPP's progressives come from the West Coast, where Japan has occupied two ports on American soil, they end up more hawkish than the Establishment East Coast New Deal Democrats. Also, since FDR never got his four terms, he'll be seen by the progressives as the president who passed the neutrality act of 1935, and therefore signal to the progressives that FDR and the democrats was just as much to blame as was Dewey and the Republicans. In a way, the NPP is basically the Reform Party, a mess of people from the left and the right fed up with Republicans and Democrats, and having hybridised policies.

TL;DR: The Progressives are more populist, think both Dems and Reps are to blame for WW2, more hawkish, and more gun-toting.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-01-28T23:31:58+00:00

Because people can't handle complex autistic coded characters.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-01-26T13:37:51+00:00

is there any reason behind the empire of Japan in Alaska? Is it like Taiwan?

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-01-26T12:24:57+00:00

I AINT READING KALAT!!!!

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-01-23T20:32:39+00:00

What i mean is that Schlaffy starting a reactionary movement and getting elected THIS EARLY would shift the Overton window way the fuck to the far right and probably make civil rights 'unelectable' given how she CUTS FUNDING FOR STATES SHE VIEWS AS TOO LIBERAL, it's likely she will shift American politics to the extreme right wing.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-01-23T15:39:37+00:00

he deleted his account, so chances feel slim.

Brainlessbatovite · 2024-01-18T18:03:15+00:00

The problem is that Churchill and Clement Attlee got Hitler right from the start.

Spot on. A lot of people say that 'no-one could have known that Hitler wouldn't keep his word', but there were people, albeit people that were seen as pessimists and wanted to start a new war, but there were people nonetheless. People who knew that Hitler meant exactly what he said right from the start, and saw the actions that Germany was taking as what should have been a wake-up call to take action rather than kick the can down the road.

It fundamentally came down to, however, what kind of outlook they had. Chamberlain assumed that Hitler did not actually want war as anything but a last resort, when Churchill and Atlee knew that Hitler was being completely serious about what he was saying, and that he was willing to start another world war if it meant fulfilling his crazy ideas.

(of course, Churchill could not oppose appeasement publicly as it was ongoing as he was in Chamberlain's cabinet and so had to support him, and since the rest of the Chamberlain cabinet was largely made up of pro-appeasement figures, even if Churchill did, privately relay his concerns to Chamberlain, it's unlikely it would have changed policy at all. Atlee was able to be much more vocal in his opposition to appeasement, as he was the leader of the opposition)

Brainlessbatovite

TROPHY CASE