In a new interview with Entertainment Weekly, series producers Aaron Harberts and Gretchen Berg share a bit of insight on how today’s real-world, politically-charged environment has influenced the development of Star Trek: Discovery‘s story.

Harberts revealed that things started during the hotly-contested 2016 US presidential election:

The allegory is that we really started working on the show in earnest around the time the election was happening.

The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country. Isolationism is a big theme. Racial purity is a big theme. The Klingons are not the enemy, but they do have a different view on things.

It raises big questions: Should we let people in? Do we want to change? There’s also the question of just because you reach your hand out to someone, do they have to take it? Sometimes, they don’t want to take it.

It’s been interesting to see how the times have become more of a mirror than we even thought they were going to be.

Harberts’ comment on “racial purity” certainly seems to lend a bit of credence to our theory that the Enterprise-era Augment virus storyline may come into play during Discovery.

Captain Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) beams over to a Klingon vessel, armed and ready.

He continued, speaking to how the Federation begins to act during this impending war with the Klingon Empire – hinting that the UFP may not play so nice during this crisis, which parallels some current international incidents that may be slowly building to a head.

The thing about the war is it takes Starfleet and the Federation and forces them to examine their ideas and ethical rules of conflict and conduct.

It provides a backdrop to how we want to be as a society and that analysis and self-reflection is new for Trek. They’ve done it in certain episodes in the past, but this is a true journey for the institution in itself.

North Korea is in our thoughts as we finish the [season].

What began as a commentary on our own divided nation — in terms of Trump supporters and non-Trump supporters — has blown out to North Korea and how we’re right on the brink.

[The U.S. is] actually right at the place where Starfleet finds itself in episode one and we couldn’t have anticipated that happening. But how do you end conflict when both sides have such strong opinions?

The USS Shenzhou takes a hit from a Klingon vessel.

Despite the doom-and-gloom of what Harberts indicates about the state of the Federation during this critical point in time, his co-showrunner Gretchen Berg sheds some sunshine on the situation:

In times of stress and conflict it can bring out the best of us and the worst of us, but ultimately brings out the best in our Starfleet officers.

We’ll see how this present-day situation manifests itself when Star Trek: Discovery arrives on September 24.

  • Partha Mittra

    This sounds really really interesting. That along with the fact that they seem to be using John Ford’s The Final Reflection as inspiration for the Klingons makes me excited for this series.

  • GIBBS v2

    Before anyone starts yelling this is yet another reason not to watch because it’s too political or it’s got an agenda, let me remind you Trek has always been a left leaning show. Always. Star Trek has always used the politics and conflicts of the day as a framework tell stories.

    • M33

      The “left-leaning” thinking of the 1960 and even 80s is far more traditionally “classical liberalism” than what “liberalism” has become today.
      There is actually a difference.

      • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

        Exactly

      • JP

        Bingo.

      • GIBBS v2

        I didn’t say “liberalism” you did. Leaning left is simply leaning left. Left in any decade is still a “progressive” position on the issues of the day.

        • M33

          Left-leaning means being in agreement with policies of liberalism. Modern liberalism is always on the “left” side of political thought. It is not used as an insult, but to add a clearer meaning to the phrase. Modern liberalism wouldn’t be identified with center or right-leaning politics.
          I would ask that you define what you think “progressive” means.

          • GIBBS v2

            I didn’t want to get into the “political weeds” but here we are. Foolish, foolish me for even trying. Split all the hairs you want bro, you knew what I meant, you win.

          • M33

            I am glad to discuss.
            Not trying to split hairs, only getting clear on the meanings of terms, because often I hear people use certain terms and not really understanding what they actually mean or convey as opposed to what they think they mean.
            Studying the history of these political philosophies I find fascinating, and it informs me on the current state of thinking as well, including how some terms have been co-opted by groups using them without historical context.

            I think 99% all agree with Trek’s philosophy of inclusivity, color-blindness, pursuit of science, well being for all life, avoiding conflict as much as possible.
            I don’t think any of us would be Trek fans if we didn’t all share those core values.
            The challenge I think is how to identify where those Trek values fall into our modern political discourse.
            I mean, hey, the Trek writers aren’t afraid to shout out from the rooftops their views, why shouldn’t we also engage in that discourse if we find their perceptions to be based on flawed assumptions?
            That is the scientific method as well, yes?

            Anyway, I do enjoy your contributions on these pages, too.
            We may disagree, but I always enjoy the discussions.

          • GIBBS v2

            I respect the high road which you have chosen to so eloquently travel.

          • M33

            Hey! It’s fun to talk!
            Always dull when I see folks resort to petty jabs.
            Where the fun in that?
            Maybe that’s just me that feels that way…

          • Synaesthesiaa

            >And I would remind you that both the KKK and the German National Socialist party were “left leaning” in the early 20th century, too.

            That’s factually bullshit, but that won’t stop you from peddling it.

          • M33

            How so?
            Please explain.
            I am interested to hear.

          • Synaesthesiaa

            No. You made the claim. You back it up. It’s well-understood by non-revisionists (and really, just non-idiots) that fascism and white nationalism are not progressive structures.

          • M33

            “Progressive” as in the principles of natural rights are secondary to the needs of the State? As in a more centralized, broad-ranging executive power structure? As in the principles of the Constitution are outdated?
            That is the actual meaning of “progressive” that was created, that TR and Wilson, and FDR championed.
            And those thoughts are far more aligned with socialism, communism, and fascism than they are with Constitutional conversativism.
            Unless you are using the word in a different manner than it was intended.
            Please don’t resort to attacks. I’d like to have a conversation.

          • Synaesthesiaa

            >No. You made the claim. You back it up.

            It’s obvious you’re not going to back up your claim that the KKK and fascism are progressive structures, so I’m done having a discussion with you.

          • M33

            My original statement was about “left leaning”, not “progressive”, as progressive can cross the threshold to left and right leaning forms, across democrat amd republican.
            You are the one who brought up the term “progressive”.
            But if you want, I am glad to ascribe that political philosophy to the KKK and “the other group”, too.
            For instance, here are some things which the progressives championed:
            -reinstitution of anti-miscegeny laws in the North
            -the passage of the 1924 hardline immigration act
            -the sterlizing of so-called “unfit” persons in society
            -the theory of eugenics
            Those are just some of the “social” causes. I could get into their Constitutional views, but I have already addressed that with you and also in my conversation with mr. joyce.
            Also, look at the timeline here:
            Democratic party 1820 to present.
            Progressive movement mid to late 1800s to present, mostly associated with the Democratic party, considered generally a “left-leaning” ideology
            KKK founded after the Civil War, aligned with the Democratic party and the Progressive movement from mid to late 1800s until around 1960s.
            As far as that “other party” in 1930s Germany, they studied and closely followed the Progressive movement.

            People sometimes think terms like “progressive”, “liberal”, “left-leaning” and “Democrat” are interchangable, but they aren’t. They each refer to different things, different levels or regions of certain political thought, but they do interact in the same sphere often.

            Glad to keep discussing if you are. ☺

          • Charles Baxter

            M33,

            “People sometimes think terms like “progressive”, “liberal”, “left-leaning” and “Democrat” are interchangable, but they aren’t. They each refer to different things, different levels or regions of certain political thought, but they do interact in the same sphere often.”

            Yes they refer to different things. While they may be in the same sphere of thought often times they don’t even interact with one another.

            Trump in a right leaning Liberal, who is quite progressive when it suits his “agenda” (you should be reading that as he personal plan to further his wealth outside of politics)

            I do notice that no one has mentioned the change in the inherent values of the political parties since roughly 1866. As both the Democrats and Republicans will change beliefs on a rotation of about a 30 year cycle. We are in the midst of the Democrats becoming the conservative party as we speak.

          • M33

            You bring up some interesting points.
            The cycles in political affiliations is very much talked about in Strauss & Howe’s book “Generations”. Have you read it?
            Another superb book is “Better Angels of Our Nature” by Stephen Pinker–in a small part of the book, he points out how today how much today that even those who predominately championed racial supremacy in their parties before in modern times totally repudiate any scent of this thinking, whereas in the past, these groups would proudly be racist.
            There was also a very interesting article in Imprimis a while back which discussed the liberal-esque part of Trump, especially given his push for things like pay raises for workers, paid maternity leave, and putting more controls over wall street like the reinstating the glass-steegle act.
            So, yeah, it is very interesting, and kind of sad, when I read words like this writer thinking that people who supported Trump’s platform are all regressive isolationist white-ethnic-nationalists. It makes me wonder if the writer even read the 2016 Republican platform at all, because nothing it it advocates for the kind of claims they have set upon the new DSC “Trump supporter” Klingons.

          • Charles Baxter

            Actually I haven’t read much on the subject.

            I just sit back and watch what’s going on and then form an opinion, so nothing fancy on my part

          • mr joyce

            you descrbe the german national socialists as left leaning when everyone else describes them as far right? the only thing left leaning about them is the word ‘socialist’ in their name, and was only put there as a description of there socialist economic policy in support of their main theme, strong nationalism against communists.

          • M33

            Yeah, it shocks most folks when I state that, but there are key differences that do not align with “right-wing” or “conservative” political philosophy.
            Most say right because of the nationist drive, but there is a key difference between ethnic nationalism and “classical” (for lack of a better word) nationalism.
            The Nazi party’s racism is what people often assume marks the party as right wing, yet when you look at their goals, it was to eliminate financial capitalism in place of labor capitalism, to which they ascribed the jews and jewish bankers as being the corruptors of their society. In order to have this, they had to give more and more power yo a centralized state, which is shared ideology of socialists and communists. Hitler actually wanted to have the end goal of a fully state run everything, and followed in the footsteps of Mussolini, who was also a socialist who found the theory of communism needed adjusting beyond what socialism could bring. Hence, fascism was born with Mussolini and then carried further with Hitler, but Hitler added the intensive racism.

            Hey, you can have nationalist communism. Just look at USSR! They are not inconguous.
            Nationalism in and of itself is not solely a right-wing concept.

            Classical liberalism, or what we know today as republican conservatism, is about less federal control, not more.
            The NAZI party was far more aligned with left-wing than right-wing ideologies.

            Man, typing on the phone is tedious… LOL

          • OK everybody, let’s move on from Nazi talk please.

          • M33

            LOL
            Fine, not a problem.

          • mr joyce

            more like nazi bashing mr mod sir 😛

          • M33

            True! Nobody likes the Nazis!

            Well… except for a few whackos.

          • mr joyce

            well, just a little bit more from me on this, seeing as its got mod attention, and bringing it back to the themes of the article, i’d like to see how the klingons will be depicted in discovery to be this group of people who desire ‘racial’ purity and how they pursue that. i think the quote from that dude in the article was rather odd in part of his description of the 2016 election here;

            ”The allegory is that we really started working on the show in earnest around the time the election was happening…
            The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country……Racial purity is a big theme”

            i never knew racial purity had much to do with the election, but id like to see how its addressed on the show.

            this sort of thing will always get comparisons to nazism though, the height of the whole ‘racial purity’ bullsh*t that keeps popping up throughout history

          • M33

            Yeah, I’m with you on that.
            “Racial” separatism is really based on some very flawed, unscientific assumptions.
            Purity? Give me a break…
            Maybe what we are seeing is less “Trumpian” Klingons and more “KKKlingons”.
            Hey, they are a minority of thought afterall, and so it seems are these new Klingons!

          • M33

            Your confusion as to why the conflation of racial purity and the 2016 US election is understandable.
            There is a massive amount of effort in trying to label Trump a white supremacist, seeking a whites only America.
            The media is notoriously pushing that mindset.
            However reality says another.
            White supremacists don’t hire 6 non-whites to be Secretaries in their cabinets. Ask any KKKer–it’s all white, all the time.
            Hopefully this misguided understanding has translated into some really good Klingon-augment stories!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Are we allowed to bash some Femi-Nazis?

          • mr joyce

            get to a keyboard silly man! 😛

            you make some good points, but you made a mistake with not saying that their economic policy was all about their support for their nationalistic agenda of building a strong ‘aryan’ nation and the furtherance of the so called ‘master race’. this is not what can be described as left leaning, because its only one small aspect of their overall agenda.

          • M33

            Love to talk more, but we need to table our discussions by request of the moderator.
            Talk again soon!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Hmm, I think you getting a tad mixed up again on your terms. First, “Modern Liberalism” is just a pop culture term (i.e. used by the media, Wikipedia, some use by clever politicians) for what is really “Social Liberalism.”

            And Social Liberalism can actually be “left” or “right” leaning depending on the topic. For example, you can practice Social Liberalism, but lean right on fiscal policy.
            .

          • M33

            The type of social liberalism you are describing is really none the different than the party principles of foundation Republicanism. From the 1820s up to the 1950s, the Democratic party towed the line of what most Republicans are touted to be by the Democrats today. Social liberalism wasn’t an invention of the 60s Left either, it was merely an extension of the principles championed by Lincoln. The difference is that the “progressive” addition occurred at the beginning of the 20th century with the rise of philosophies like socialism and communism.
            But I do agree that there are some who can accept different parts of different philosophies into a view such as yours (and frankly my own–equal treatment for all, ban recognition of marriage and institute civil unions across the board to get the federal govt out of the argument, demand balanced budgets, etc.).
            But I use the term “modern” as a way to distinguish it from the meaning of “classical liberalism”, the kind that deals with the rights of the individual and natural rights, which Trek was always keen to tout. I could care less what “pop” politicians call anything anymore.
            Trek was more aligned with a mix of classic Republican values and classical Liberalism, generally hinging on the same point:
            Equality for the individual and preservation of our natural rights.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            My post above also responds to this one…..

          • M33

            (Good idea! It can be a challenge to follow multiple threads)

          • Ace Stephens

            “SJW” is a mocking pejorative like “keyboard warrior,” referring to someone who – regarding “social justice” issues – talks in a certain fashion (typically overzealously) but for whom the individual actions they engage in or practical outcomes of their beliefs are intrinsically lacking or ineffective (perhaps even resulting in the opposite outcome in some cases). In this manner, it differs notably from a “social justice advocate.”

            Imagine someone saying “I proudly consider myself a keyboard warrior.” It borders on unintentional self-parody.

            I would prefer if people just stopped using the term altogether as it tends to be thrown around at advocates by those politically-opposed, regardless of if their advocacy is misguided, self-defeating, contradictory, hypocritical, “online only,” etc. or not. It seems often not.

            But I encourage you to avoid unintentional self-parody as it will only strengthen the resolve of those who think advocates (are “SJWs” and therefore) lack awareness.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I hate the term SJW but it is an accurate term for someone who takes social justice too far. These are normally the same people who what all white people hated and talk about crap like ‘white privilege’.

          • Ace Stephens

            I have no issue with the theoretical (not that it doesn’t apply sociologically – as it typically appears to) construct of a majority tending to have its needs catered to more than a minority within a region/culture – and the recognition of that. What I take issue with is the overbearing assertions of it in every direction to the point where well-reasoned views are written off (simply for not aligning perfectly with “what people are supposed to think” according to the listener or some generalization of “society”) as “white privilege”-filtered. And people who aren’t white who happen to agree with such takes are demeaned (worse than random white people who “disagree” in most such instances) as somehow subhuman. It really starts to show the cracks/hypocrisy in a lot of these mentalities when they lose sight of “the goal” in favor of roughly engaging in similar views/tactics/etc. to those they denounce.

            These “love trumps hate” sorts (not that all who say such things are like this) who all they do is lump people together unfairly, judge people based on race (and racial generalities/stereotypes), etc. and constantly spew vitriol. They clearly don’t believe “love trumps hate” but are so self-absorbed that they believe their worldview must be flawless no matter what (never, ever criticize them or suggest a way they might improve their approach as then you’re clearly a “[worst thing ever]-sympathizer” or similar) and therefore everyone must follow the way they think things should be “or else.” (But, don’t forget – it’s everyone else who are the authoritarian, tyrannical fascists or…whatever. No projection going on there. No way!)

            Real open, loving people those sorts. They almost give the vile “why don’t we just respect all people…except anybody who isn’t white and Christian and male”-sorts a run for their money. And, of course, these imbeciles feed each other’s stupidity…

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It’s a serious problem that can’t be ignored. I guess because my politics are central I see that imbalance between the left and right. It’s kind of a problem where we really shouldn’t be giving people with extreme left or right views like model Munroe Bergdorf a platform to talk because they’re not entitled to that due to their awful views on society.

          • Ace Stephens

            I’m fine with those who have rather terrible views happening to speak and their right to speak and all this (we can only see and refute their views if we’re aware)…but I agree that we generally shouldn’t be spotlighting them in a rather sensationalist manner. But the media loves to and many feed that (including myself on occasion via clicks…) by constantly running stories on these controversial notions and pretending these views are more prevalent than they are (and we should obviously agree or disagree on the basis of some clearly “correct” stance – because the media’s job is apparently to determine morality (not like that concept has been abused time after time in the past to denounce people unfairly, including/particularly marginalized people). Then people, both looking for acceptance or rejecting the ridiculousness of some views, wind up “picking their side” more and more rather than seeing that (while it’s obviously more complicated than this overall…) the “side” construct is basically the problem.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The thing about it these views that the media as you say spotlights are often seen as valid concerns which just fuels the way current society is. We’re supposed to apparently agree with these radical left views, it’s really dodgy to watch.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Being called an SJW isn’t a complement. Those people are a real threat to society. Please remember this…

          • Ben

            Roddenberry was humanist, SJW didn’t become a term till the God Warrior episode of trading spouses came about.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Nor really. I actually lived through the 1960’s and 1970’s. It was much about Social Liberalism versus Classical Liberalism. The Great Society, The War on Poverty, the Anti-War Movement, The Civil Rights Movement, Desegregation/Busing, were classic Social Liberalism policy implementation, and very distant from Classical Liberalism. And the “Bernie Sanders brand” of liberalism essentially continues this today — largely unchanged.

        And I think you may be confused about some of these terms as well. Here is a bit of background — in the U.S., Modern Conservatism and Social Liberalism split from Classical Liberalism in the early 20th century; originally, they were combined in the 19th century principles of Classical Liberalism.

        • M33

          That is true for the most part, except that while “left leaners” in the past were more conservative about their want of socialism in our society and government, today there is a far stronger pull toward demanding socialism and even toward communistic systems of governance.
          Classical liberalism does not aim towards that. And Trek’s foundations don’t speak towards those other governing systems either.
          Modern conservatism is essentially a reiteration of classical liberalism.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Two points here, and this is also a response to you reply to my other post here as well on this topic.

            1. Regarding TOS, you said:

            “Trek was more aligned with a mix of classic Republican values and classical Liberalism, generally hinging on the same point:
            Equality for the individual and preservation of our natural rights.”

            I think this is an over-simplification. While I agree that you can watch the episodes and say, “these characters practice classical liberalism” in their daily lives, this largely ingores the “govemental backbone” of the Federation (it’s laws, business rules, etc) that we unfortunately learn very little about during TOS. And we get contrary messages, as we have some episodes where we clearly see social injustice and greed is alive and well, and other episodes suggests that “we” have moved past that. It think the likely explanation is that for the Starfleet characters we get familiar with, yea, they are “above all that,” but that probably most of the society is living in a futuristic versions of a socially liberal democracy, that have many rules and laws that ensure social justice…and also technology is such that there is no reason for anyone to be homeless or poor anymore.

            2. Regarding, “Trek was more aligned with a mix of classic Republican values,” I’d like to hear from you much more specifically how you conclude that? Additionally, are we talking about the readily discernible Republican values of say Ronald Reagan, which are well-identified and make some common sense, are are you talking about the cluster-fuck of what is going on today — I don’t have a clue about what those values are today anymore, and their is now way that I believe the liar-in-chief even would be able to converse with you or I intelligently in this sort of discussion. If Abe Lincoln were around today, he’d be much more like Gov Kasich (OH) or Gov Brown (CA) then any of those failures of leaders in Washington.

            PS: I also sense that you have personal political reasons for wanting to be able to morph your arguments to be able to conclude that, “Star Trek has classical Republican values”? 😉

          • M33

            I’m very much looking to continuing this conversation.
            I have to go for now, but I’ll come back and post another response. Just letting you know I’m not abandoning our discourse!

            Ahh… work!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            No problem. “Talk to you” over the weekend!

          • M33

            Man.
            Had a whole lot here and the time-out erased it!
            Ahh!
            I’ll go at it again.

            I’ll try to answer your items linerally:

            >>I think this is an over-simplification. While I agree that you can watch the episodes and say, “these characters practice classical liberalism” in their daily lives, this largely ingores the “govemental backbone” of the Federation (it’s laws, business rules, etc) that we unfortunately learn very little about during TOS.

            I agree that TOS does not provide us with much on the side of governmental structure. And only in STIV do we learn they are a non-monetary society. It is one of the least explored areas of Trek, and frankly one of the most exciting. The post-TOS series delve a little more into it, but still not much regarding nuts and bolts.

            >> And we get contrary messages, as we have some episodes where we clearly see social injustice and greed is alive and well, and other episodes suggests that “we” have moved past that.
            That we do! Look Mudd’s Women. He was selling women as wives to frontier lithium miners? None of that situation seemed like those people were living a life where their needs were being met. It asks an interesting question as to who are and aren’t actual Federation citizens and are there human groups operating outside that governmental realm?
            While it is apparent they live in a colorblind society, there are odd statements like Pike’s regarding “woman on the bridge” and Janice Lester’s “your world of starship captains doesn’t allow women” (which I agree with Mike Okuda’s interpretation of that phrase referring to Kirk’s personal life, not to Starfleet as a organization, because it is incongruous with everything else we have seen since, including ENT).

            >>It think the likely explanation is that for the Starfleet characters we get familiar with, yea, they are “above all that,” but that probably most of the society is living in a futuristic version of a socially liberal democracy, that has many rules and laws that ensure social justice…

            I agree and disagree here.
            They aren’t using a democracy. Too cumbersome, and they wouldn’t allow the “tyrrany of the majority” which the Constitution protects against. A democratic republic, sure. Classical liberal values, or socially liberal if you want to call them that, that see all human beings as equal to one another not hindered by prejudice of race or gender, absolutely. Civil rights, or equal treatment under the law, is the core value of Star Trek, even in TOS.
            But if you mean Rawls version of social justice, I would disagree on certain points of that.

            >>>and also technology is such that there is no reason for anyone to be homeless or poor anymore.
            Did you read Trekonomics? He talks about that notion, but I wish he had explored the whole thing better because by not addressing the issue of private property, he never really gets to the core of economics or government.
            Still an interesting book, best one yet.

            >>2. Regarding, “Trek was more aligned with a mix of classic Republican values,” I’d like to hear from you much more specifically how you conclude that?

            Look at the values and platorm of the 1860 “classical” (for lack of a better word) Republican party. They are the a restatement basically of classical liberalism, but adding the clear point that abolishonists championed, making sure it extended to all men (and they did want to include women too, ultimately).
            When we hear someone say today that they are a “conservative”, this is 90% of what they are meaning–staying in line with these principles that all are equal under the rule of law as it was written. Only in the 1960s did the Democratic party start adding civil rights to their party platform with LBJs “great society, which split the party into what it is today.

            >>Additionally, are we talking about the readily discernible Republican values of say Ronald Reagan, which are well-identified and make some common sense, or are you talking about the cluster-fuck of what is going on today — I don’t have a clue about what those values are today anymore, and there is no way that I believe the liar-in-chief even would be able to converse with you or I intelligently in this sort of discussion.

            Funny enough, despite how the media presents it, Reagan and Trump values are very similar.
            If you go online and look at the 1980 republican platform and compare it to the 2016 Republican platform, you’ll find them to be very similar, and in some parts, the 2016 one is a bit more left leaning with the desire to reinstate the glass-steegle act and paid maternity leave.

            >>If Abe Lincoln were around today, he’d be much more like Gov Kasich (OH) or Gov Brown (CA) than any of those “Modern Conservative” failures that think they are leaders in Washington.
            LOL Maybe. But I think Lincoln has some serious balls to do what he did, and stuck it to folks who disagreed sharply. Granted, Lincoln was far more eloquent, but Trump is just talking like most Bronx guys I’ve known. They may sound uncouth, but they can be razor-sharp!

            >>PS: I also sense that you have personal political reasons for wanting to be able to morph your arguments to be able to conclude that, “Star Trek has classical Republican values”? 😉

            Nah! Just having a conversation! I just like to clarify when people think Republican values means bible thumping school prayer and wiping inclusivity off the map. Yeah, there are a small small small group like that, but the vast majority are mostly interested in preserving the rule of law and Constitutional values.
            Glad to talk more!

          • DC Forever

            I doubt Trump has even read his own platform. He’s a complete nut job who largerly makes things up as he goes along. You are deluding yourself by comparing him to Reagan, and that also dishoner’s Reagan, who was a true leader.

            Trump is a deceiver, a compulsive liar, a bully, a backstabber, an internet troll, a lawbreaker, a person who doesn’t read, doesn’t learn from history, a misogonistic “light abuser” of young women, an abuser of fair business practice standards, a man throws others under the bus to preserve his brand, and an angry, reactive drama queen when criticized.

            Comparing Trump to Ronald Reagan is like trying comparing Mort Downey Jr to the Pope. I almost feel like I need to take a shower after making this comparison.

          • M33

            LOL
            Funny!
            Yeah, I am not talking about Trump’s moral character compared to Reagan’s. Reagan would win out hands down, of course.
            I was referring specifically to the platform comparisons, to which there are many many things they shared in common politically.
            And it is Trump and his team that made that platform, and so far yhey are sticking to what they laid out in it… even “if” he never read it.

          • DC Forever

            You go right on believing that. I feel bad for good people on the right who are trying to convince themselves that this is going to work out in terms of their policy goals.

            He’ll continue to implode, then the nation will over-react in the next election, and we will probably get 4 years of ultra-liberal Bernie, which will be its own kind of mess for the nation.

          • M33

            DC, I am not stating belief. You can read the two platforms for yourself and see the comparisons on your own.
            The question becomes will his administration implement them, and, frankly, so far he is, and some I disagree with.
            But as far as 2020… all we can do is wait and see, and work with those elected to get them to make choices that fit what we are seeking in the meantime, and let the checks and balances in the Constitution do what they must.

          • Ace Stephens

            Regarding what I imagine happening at this point (although I would like to see a suitable Democratic President…which I guess shows my own bias), I think the media’s overblown portrayal of many political events is putting off a lot of voters who – despite predominately disliking the current Republican administration/President – can see through the manipulation (“The sky is falling! Worst President EVAR?! Give us your clicks!!! We love money more than decent journalism!”) and feel it “goes too far.” This recognition may well result in a “pushback” and another Republican Presidential victory in 2020 (even if the Democrats will likely come out in full-force in 2018).

            *sigh*

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The thing is you can’t totally complain it’s the media’s fault when nearly every Star Trek actor signs a petition to get Clinton elected? People in entertainment like Colbert and Kimmel sure aren’t helping. It seems as though the US needs a villain and Trump is it.

          • Ace Stephens

            I can basically continue to point toward “the media” given that they seemed to enforce the concept of “groupthink” to such a degree that those Star Trek actors who refused to sign were thought less of by some (and there seemed to be either articles or people who write for that media on Twitter “subtly” suggesting that they were somehow politically immoral). There is a tremendous amount of pressure, as far as I understand it, in entertainment to “follow the leader” on these things or risk your entire career/livelihood. So if a celebrity was doubting Trump or leaning toward Clinton a bit or even didn’t quite know but then everyone and their mother signed something and those who don’t were treated like they shouldn’t be hired?

            …Yeah, I think the fragile egos (and shockingly fragile “bank accounts”…providing for fragile homes…) of a lot of celebrities would say, “I have to do that or the media will destroy me.” And, in some cases or on some subjects, there might be some truth to that.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            People laugh at Trump taking about ‘fake news’ but I have to admit he’s absolutely right in this case. The media especially online is so politically biased and unreliable.

          • M33

            Totally agree.
            Worst president? Really? Did they forget FDRs stripping of civil rights from Japanese ancestry Americans?
            Did they read the behaviors and platforms of 19th century presidents.
            Such overblown ridiculousness…
            It’s all sensationalism now it seems.
            And forget objectivity or report “just the facts”. Every bit of it is laced with snarky, nasty commentary from both sides.
            We don’t have news shows, really.
            We have “commentary opinion” shows under the ruse of “news”.
            Besides… how can we take any of what they say as objective when all of them are corporate structures with vested interests in supporting the ideological platforms that ensure their continuance?
            To quote George Carlin:
            “It’s all bullshit, folks. It’s all bullshit and it’s bad for ya.”

          • Ace Stephens

            And forget objectivity or report “just the facts”. Every bit of it is laced with snarky, nasty commentary from both sides.

            And when you report “just the facts” (genuinely – not simply claiming that while spouting absurd talking points or repeating falsehoods or limiting the scope of the facts via cherry-picking or things like this)…you get accused of having some agenda for “the other side” if those facts don’t match the preferred political narrative of the individual perceiving those facts.

            It’s ####ing painful seeing all of this. Looking at things and going, “Okay, maybe this could be fixed in a way that really helps people…” and “Maybe there’s a genuine compromise that could be made on that…” only to find that, no. No way. It’s not going to happen because around 80% of the people discussing it in public have no ability to listen to reason (and the actual officials in government making “the big decisions” are often so detached from the reality as to only grasp what might get them re-elected). And the rest of the populace (which is fairly reasonable…and likely outnumbers that 80% by a notable percentage) feel relatively incapable of overcoming the stupidity. Because, of course, when the remotely reasonable people speak up, they are quickly denounced by nearly all of the vocal minority who insist on making things worse while complaining about how they’re getting that way.

          • M33

            I know exactly what you mean.
            It is like there is no allowance anymore for the debate of ideas.
            Shutting down the conversation seems to be the MO nowadays…
            I wish wish wish we could have civil debates on the matters… but unfortunately many people now treat their polticial ideology in a religious manner, demonizing the “nonbelievers”.
            It is incredibly frustrating. And the media just laps it all up.
            No wonder I stopped having cable TV 20 years ago…

          • Pedro Ferreira

            A lot of people, mostly on the left compare Trump to Hitler or some other stupid rubbish but there never consider there are worse leads in this world. Trump is incompetent and a ruthless businessman but about on the same level as George Bush Jr in being a good president.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            If wanting a single payer healthcare system, (which by the way, nearly all of the industrialized world does because it’s proven to be more efficient), and wanting to tax Wall street to fund college tuition sounds crazy left to you, then I guess you can call me Ivan. LOL

          • M33

            Single payer works in other countries because their court systems operate different than ours.
            In all former crown colonies now their own countries, their system is set that if you sue someone and you lose, you are required to pay the other sides legal costs.
            You can see easily how this deters frivolous lawsuits rampant in the US. And no congresscritter is willing to do Tort reform to fix the problem–this is why medical malpractice insurance is insanely expensive in the US, and why universal healthcare can never work here without being outrageously expensive.
            We do tort reform, we could have universal health care easily.
            But they keep putting the cart before the horse and wondering why it does not seem to be working out.
            That said, federal run most anything is a bureaucratic nightmare. Ask anyone in the medicial profession how much stress was added to their lives from the ACA.

            College… is a whole other animal… LOL

        • DanielleBScott

          my classmate’s step-sister makes $70 an hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for 7 months but last month her pay was $20705 just working on the laptop for a few hours. try this website

          http://www.jobsliveproductprotection

          ▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼▼::::sc95

        • LoriCPike

          last wednesday I got a gorgeous opel after having made $4979 this month and-even more than, ten thousand last-munth . it’s by-far the best-job I have ever had . I started this 10-months ago and pretty much straight away startad making over $71 per-hour . visit

          http://www.ParttimeGoogleSpecialOnlineJobsTop...

        • LillianEReynolds

          get begin operating with google online system and get an extra money stream to help your family and completing straightforward jobs.
          last monday I got a gorgeous Volkswagen Golf GTI since getting a cheque for $7321 thiss month and-in excess of, ten-grand lass month . it’s definitly the nicest job I’ve ever had . I started this 7-months ago and almost straight away was bringin home at least $70… per-hr . learn the facts here now
          !sr222d:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GetParttimeJobsChannelGoogleMania/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!sr222l..,.

        • BeverlyRDoster

          Now Google gives everyone a source-of-dollars just working on the laptop for a few hours.earn $72 every hour
          last monday I got a gorgeous Volkswagen Golf GTI since getting a cheque for $7321 thiss month and-in excess of, ten-grand lass month . it’s definitly the nicest job I’ve ever had . I started this 7-months ago and almost straight away was bringin home at least $70… per-hr . learn the facts here now
          !sr242d:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽;➽➽ http://GetParttimeJobsGreenGoogleMania/more/cash ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!sr242l..,…

      • Tone

        Very well said. I’m an old school leftie, but leftism today is just insipid, and little more than bullying your opinions on others who dare to not share the same.

        The left is quickly becoming so extreme, that it is at risk of being more hateful and damaging (socially) than the right ever has.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          We shouldn’t be giving attention to extreme left or right people. We shouldn’t be giving them a platform to speak on TV.

          • Muldfeld

            Name me even one extreme left person on TV, who isn’t nullified by 10 far more rightist talking heads. The political consensus has moved farther and farther right. This “both extremes” talk is typical CNN bullcrap.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The extreme lefts get more media attention, that is obvious.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL. Again, you must let us know where you live, because in the U.S, Trump get like’s 75% of all media attention these days.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I’m talking worldwide. Entertainment today is very left leaning and the news or mainstream media would have you believe their bias is correct. I have no doubt Trump gets 75% media attention but most of it is critical or mocking him due to the current left wing bias. I’m not a hugely political guy but am explaining what I see from my own point of view.

        • M33

          I think the reason why is because this unfortunately has become the playbook:

          https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41Y75JcE2RL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

        • Muldfeld

          The last time I checked. The Democrats had moved so far right, they nominated a Republican in Hillary Clinton to run against Trump. The left has lost so badly that Obama attacked FDR and praised Reagan. “The Resistance” is not the true left anymore than defending Bill Clinton’s oral sex scandal was was at the forefront of progressives’ minds in the ’90s.

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      Left today, pc “sjws” basically,and left in the 60s are very different things.

      • DC Forever

        20 up votes to 1. LMFAO !!!

        • prometheus59650

          I’m surprised he doesn’t consistently upvote himself, to be honest.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle
        • Perplexum

          I thought SJW is a derogatory term for a regressive movement within the left, busy with banning words and advocating the return of gender separation.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You are missing the point. I am turning the tables on the alt-right and saying that this term should be something that those of use who support social justice should embrace. Let’s take ownership of this term, which you know, sounds like a very positive term to me. Sure, I am a warrior for social justice — why wouldn’t I want to be that? I embrace it an re-define it as a positive strength.

          • Ace Stephens

            …This is the exact “They’re so out of touch, they think…”-type attitude that strengthens the use of the phrase. It is plainly a negative and random people who are indifferent to the phrase/concept know as much. You can’t redefine it or fix it because your attempts to do so only play into the definition held by…roughly anyone who uses it (which includes the “alt-right”).

            The people who throw that term around just mock you and feel further justified (in thinking you lack perspective/understanding) when you appear to take it on as a badge of honor. Otherwise, you’re preaching to the choir (others who “legitimately” are or also “take on” the label of SJWs) or turning off the indifferent majority (who fully-recognize it as a pejorative and ridiculous to latch onto in order to self-identify positively – when an alt-righter says, “Yeah, I’m racist! So what?” – or anything similar…that doesn’t change your view of the issues with racism, does it?). Which actually aligns with what the negative implications of the “SJW” label are – that they (“SJWs”) are so far beyond comprehension that they reduce their own efforts through either outright misunderstanding the implications of rather clear things or applying measures in a manner which reduces the likelhood of a positive outcome (surrounding any “social justice” goal). It’s just a bad idea across the board.

            It’s “pure cringe” (more internet slang – yay!) to many who value both social advocacy and despair at the thought of fueling the self-righteousness of reactionaries.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            No offense, but that kind of backing off and ceding these terms to alt-right and essentially rubber-stamping it for them, is why they are in power today.

          • Ace Stephens

            No offense, but that kind of backing off and ceding these terms to the
            alt-right — essentially rubber-stamping it for them — is why they are
            in power today.

            Perhaps we need clarification on terms. What do you mean when you say “alt-right” here? Because there is a “right” power in place but “alt-right” is debatable depending upon your intended designations within that. If you mean the more vicious, racist, “white nationalist” association that has become prevalent…I can’t take that seriously (since it’s utterly detached from reality to suggest that’s the dominant outlook “in power”), despite the notable factions one could point toward. If you simply mean this weird distortion of conservative politics which often “plays well” to some of those (repulsive) factions…I can significantly agree there.

            Just drop “SJW.” If your means of combating the rhetoric of the alt-right is by reenforcing it, I would suggest you’re the one doing them favors by doing so. Because reasonable people are not going to just pretend that overbearing and self-defeating social justice advocates don’t exist. But they will note that someone taking a clearly negative term and trying to reclaim it when that’s the type of absurd thing they’re being accused of when labeled the term…they will note that this basically “proves the point” of whoever called someone an “SJW” (which might actually draw sympathies/understanding to the side of whoever’s unironically throwing that term around). And that’s not something I’d like to do (suggest, “Well, the ‘accuser’ does have a point…”) in those cases where the individual being labeled such a thing isn’t…plainly way off-base in their advocacy attitudes/methods/etc.

            Another example, today, “Big Government” is something all the people in
            distress in the Red states of Fliorida and Texas appreciate, as they are
            getting help, including I believe over $20 Billion just passed to help
            them re-build. I saw an editorial cartoon which showed FEMA agents
            rescuing people, and one of the people being rescued had a T-shirt that
            said Stop Big Government.

            You consider help from things like the taxes people already pay (whether they’d prefer not to or…not – they generally have or have been required to where applicable) and the organizations established to deal with specific, imminent threats to be “big government”? Have you considered that they (those individuals being criticized in such an instance as here, if generalized as a collective) might not?

            If you oversimplify what “the other side” stands for, it’s often easier to write them off, yes. I don’t really like the “side-taking” people engage in when it seems they do so (really, that’s why I dislike the “SJW” term – it is tossed out there in far more cases than it is remotely applicable, in my opinion, despite there being a rise in such vocal “SJW” attitudes in recent years). Do I believe there are incredibly foolish people who would do away with government help due to a lack of perspective while thinking they have more perspective by doing so? Yes. And “SJW”s engage in similar attitudes regarding their own beliefs. I wouldn’t try to be “the other side” of a worthless coin, particularly not after having recognized “the other side” as worthless.

            But I must stress again that social justice advocacy is not the same as being a “social justice warrior” and those who treat them as the same, whether in order to “denounce” reasonable social justice efforts or to “denounce” the labeling as a negative (which, when applied as-intended, it is…and, otherwise, is misapplied by buffoons), wind up harming their perspective in relation to the majority. As if someone says, “They shouldn’t be discriminated against based on their race…” about some high-profile civil suit by a member of a racial minority and someone else earnestly calls them an SJW…the majority are going to think that’s absurd. So too will people find it absurd when people proclaim “I’m a proud SJW!”

            It doesn’t match the well-recognized meaning or the reality. And what are SJWs accused of? Ignoring reality. Don’t feed that (or else you risk truly being someone who’s self-defeating regarding your social justice advocacy – thus, “proving them right”).

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Not dropping it, and will continue using the term as I have redefined it as a positive term. But thanks for the essay.

          • Ace Stephens

            Uh…well, that’s not necessarily about a term plainly-defined, as far as the general populace is concerned, as wholly negative. I’ve seen that quote before and have a vague understanding of its context but don’t think it really compares.

            Your outlook on this whole thing is immensely oversimplified, lacking in understanding of human nature, etc. Again, you wouldn’t accept someone saying, “Yeah, but I’m alt-right and proud! Because if alt-right means standing up for individual liberties despite oppressive powers attempting to dilute and demean our culture…then being alt-right’s a good thing!”

            You’d probably suggest something like, “That just shows how out-of-touch you are! And that you either don’t know what alt-right means and/or don’t care that you are the bad things it refers to!”

            But you don’t realize that’s what your thing sounds like. And, to people on the alt-right or however opposed (in principle rather than what I view as your flawed practice)…you just further embolden them (as their similar ridiculousness emboldens you).

            It’s time for people to be more mature than this. Unfortunately, I don’t think most are ready.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            As a lot of people, I used to be mature and thoughtful on politics. Look where that got us.

            Lesson learned.

          • Ace Stephens

            As a lot of people, I used to be mature and thoughtful on politics. Look where that got us. Lesson learned!

            Few showed it during this last election. But apparently you feel that you did and that didn’t work? So you switched to the Dark Side…

            I think your, “let’s be mature and thoughtful” approach is naive, and that it is the recipe for 2 terms of Trump.

            Showing those who (often reluctantly…which shouldn’t be much o a surprise) support Trump regardless of his actions/behaviors/etc. that those who oppose him are reasonable is not a bad thing in my view. But when someone (and the media…) reacts as though Trump sending out a poorly-worded tweet about something regarding a celebrity (or something) is the end of the world? When people start spouting off conspiracy theories about things (“We all know what he really meant. It’s a dog whistle to…”)? I treat that with the same, “That’s absurd. Here’s what I can discern of what we actually know and what was contextually said…” approach I did back when people did it to the previous President. And when people freak out in response to that, they just reveal themselves to be as outlandish as they first appeared (if not worse). Most see that eventually. Yes, one can play to emotions…but that just means that when the pendulum swings, it still won’t be driven by reasonable stances. So, whether for or against my relative “side” or the like…it’s bad. I know politics and similar are rarely motivated, in-premise, by reason…but engaging in a bad thing to combat that same bad thing has never made sense to me in cases where the thing is truly bad. In cases where it’s contextual, sure…it might work…but, to me, extremism isn’t contextual except relative to “moderation” by comparison.

            If I see people fighting to such an insane degree over whether red hats or blue hats are what we’re supposed to wear…I don’t simply pick a side or advocate for my favorite of the two more. I ask why we think we must wear hats, why those are the only two options, what good comes of the conflict and/or its resolution, etc. Suggesting that the best way to combat an extreme is to be more extreme (and narrow-minded) in opposing it…feeds extremism (both “sides”). That should be fairly simple to grasp but apparently it isn’t now what with the whole “But that’s what lets them win! NO! GO FURTHER!”-type stuff you’re espousing. That, sadly, I have seen many pushing for.

            And I don’t frequent the areas specifically of “the other side” much but, given what little I have seen…I can only assume they are likely to be saying similar things.

            They win by bullying and brushing aside the intellectuals — you are
            behaving exactly how they want you to behave.

            If the intellectuals are overbearing, lacking in perspective, posturing with hysterics about everything Trump does (and some are)…well, they should be brushed aside. All of this “cry wolf” stuff done at every turn is what causes those who aren’t conservative or supportive of them to go, “The left has lost the plot…” and ignore when evident scandals do arise or major legislative issues should be prominent on the minds of the populace. Instead, people go, “Oh, Trump did something bad or outrageous again? Yawn.” and just want people to shut up about it. But not enough to give in to them by saying, “Sure, Melania wore high heels while heading to address those hurt by a natural disaster? IMPEACH TRUMP!”

            You are doing exactly
            what Steve Bannon wants you to do.

            I don’t really care what he wants me to do or not do. He seems rather transparent to me (although many enjoy “reading into” what he’s saying – in other words, projecting their fears onto him). I think he wants Democrats and “The Left” getting more extreme (like you seem to be advocating) because he believes that if people keep suggesting that everything is racist or fascist or whatever even when it basically has nothing to do with anything…yeah, most people are going to pick up on that eventually and avoid those people. Just like they avoid the ranting, raving people standing around on soapboxes talking about how the end is near.

            Responsible journalists would do a lot of good toward rectifying this concern…but there aren’t (many) “responsible journalists” now because sensationalism sells so, sure, everything Trump is a white nationalist conspiracy funded by Russia or something because Bannon’s advocated (economic) nationalism (and his ex-wife suggested he was antiSemitic) and some people working for Trump met some people from Russia and all this. Basically, adding two and two and saying it’s thirty-five because that’s the answer one wanted. And because saying it’s a troubling four…well, how do you put that in a headline to get clicks when thirty-five is what people want to hear? “Trump Kind Of Has Had Dealings With Russia…But Not Really In a Relevant Manner To The Election In This Case As Far As Anyone Knows…So That’s Probably What Any Denials Were About Contextually…But…Please Click”? No. You label it “Trump-Russia Connection Exposes Backroom Deal During Campaign” or something like that. Generally, if not how the way out there media groups now label things, something that sounds somewhat respectable but still implies dark, insidious matters even in cases where there aren’t clearly any. (Not that there aren’t major concerns surrounding such matters…)

            And reasonable people who happen upon it look at that stuff, read that it’s “sources claim” stuff and adds a bunch of conjecture about other things that are unverified as far as any direct evidence goes…and go, “…So?” Whereas people who have already lapped up the narrative go, “OMG!” and share it on Facebook and Twitter and unfriend/unfollow anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% or who says, “Okay but…” and asks potentially valid questions about it.

            That drives people away and makes them go, “Look, I know Trump’s pretty much the worst…but he’s not what they act like he is or, if he is, they have yet to actually prove it. Yet they act like they’ve proven it every ten seconds.” So that helps Trump.

            But (to generalize) the media doesn’t care (about actually holding Trump to account). As some involved (in news websites/networks) have noted, Trump has been great for their business.

            Being “reasonable” and “moderate” is unfortunately not appropriate for
            this weird point in American history. We need “trench warfare” and need
            to give it back as hard as we receive in order to regain some
            initiative on progressive principles.

            What we need to do is let the loons expose themselves and then mock them. And (almost) everyone else will slowly realize the stupidity and join in. But if we go, “They’re acting like a right loon? I’ll be a left loon!” …We just tell them (anyone who isn’t picking an extreme) to ignore the left because they have so many loons. Maybe they’re getting the same message from the right but it’s not as loud right now in the media’s approach itself. In the content of their coverage, it’s very loud but most recognize it’s not proportionate to the right’s immediate level of lunacy. (Even though the right is and has been…um…”way off-base” for quite awhile now…)

            THINK intellectually, but ACT like a defensive end rushing the passer.

            Maybe I’m wrong here. But I just really don’t think this stuff will help at all. As far as I’m concerned, while there were obviously many factors…the main reason Hillary didn’t manage to overcome Trump regarding victory conditions is everybody on “The Left” kept treating Trump like a joke even when his immediate political elements weren’t that (although his behavior has consistently been a frightening one but this should have been largely beside the point regarding policy – the context of concern)…and they kept calling everything racist (for instance, he gives a very poorly-worded speech about illegal immigration surrounding the context of not knowing the criminal history of such people but even allows that some might be good…but all people do is say he called all Mexicans rapists and things like that…)…and all these things.

            Overzealousness, exaggeration, (undue, even if the party is awful) demonization, etc…

            That’s how Trump won. Doubling down on it, matching the right’s idiotic overreaction to that, etc…

            That’s a recipe for disaster. Even bigger than the political one occurring now.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            A very thoughtful, well meaning and reasonable response. Good fodder for upscale coffee-shop discussion.

            But hopelessly out of touch with reality, with little chance of gaining much traction at this point in time.

          • Ace Stephens

            Well, you almost certainly won’t remember this discussion when/if what I imagine comes to pass – Democrats gain some traction in 2018 (based on the “OMG, TRUMP!”-hype causing a decent turnout…while those who follow the Trump news otherwise shrug because the election isn’t really “about Trump” to them) and then a Republican wins the 2020 Presidential election (based on the “OMG, TRUMP!”-hype alienating people who can see that much of it is simply this overblown hype – even if he is awful and they think so too). Instead, in 2020, you’ll likely scream about how terrible it is and how Democrats weren’t loud enough following thinking they had things in the bag post-2018’s victories…and so quite possibly we’ll get another Republican Presidential win after that, too. (Only maybe with some shifting in 2022 back to Republicans? …Or maybe not.)

            I wonder at what point you’ll realize that harsher, less reality-based sentiments are your forte right now and that when they’re driving sentiment against your stance…rather than pushing further, it might be best to take a differing approach.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Fool me twice, shame on me.

          • Ace Stephens

            I’d venture it’s worse when one’s making a fool of oneself. And their solution is continuing to do so.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Gene wasn’t an SJW. He believed in equality and wasn’t trying to use his own politics to change society for his own selfish politics. No man, just no.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You are falling into the trap of accepting the alt-right’s derogatory definition of “SJW”, Gene was a person who supported social justice for all and practiced what he preached — he was a true warrior for social justice, as am I.

            I refuse to allow the alt-right to get the benefit of making that term derrogatory. We need to coopt this term and turn it into a positive.

            Here’s how JFK took back “liberal” years ago:

            “If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal”, then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “You are falling into the trap of accepting the alt-right’s derogatory definition of “SJW”,” No I’m not. This is a term that anybody right or central accepts.

            “Gene was a person who supported social justice for all and practiced what he preached — he was a true warrior for social justice, as am I.” There’s a difference between someone wanting social justice to create equality and someone wanting social justice to politically get their side more in control. Gene did the former which is great, SJWs are the latter. I would hope that you’re the former.

            “I refuse to allow the alt-right to get the benefit of making that term derrogatory. We need to coopt this term and turn it into a positive.” You can’t turn a negative term into a positive one. That’s like calling Gene an Internet troll and trying to turn that into a positive thing.

            ““If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal”, then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”” As someone who is central I think you need both left and right values otherwise you alienate one side or the other. My concern is that currently at least in entertainment society is very left leaning which is why you get so much resistance from central people or the right to radical ideas by the left.

          • Ace Stephens

            You are absolutely right (that it applies to those things). It is not a positive and people who walk around saying “Proud SJW!” only further encourage those who call basically anyone who advocates for any social good “SJWs” and also indifferent people to go, “Yikes…kind of an SJW thing to do.” Because it ignores the realities in favor of “I TYPED A THING ON THE INTERNET!”

            Like “keyboard warrior.” Anyone who, while knowing it’s mocking and is used to refer to people who one considers overblown online and completely ineffective in reality, considers themselves “a proud keyboard warrior”…really doesn’t get it.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            SJWs are increasing in society and it’s people like that that are causing society to be as fragile and oversensitive as it is.

          • Ace Stephens

            Yup. They just feed each other. So then even more people with “moderate” views become polarized as they see the ridiculousness of this and that (claim, association, accusation, etc.) and drift further toward thinking that, somehow, these immense overreactions to things (including miscontextualizing on the basis of personal concern rather than any immediate relationship) are justified. As long as it’s for “my side,” of course.

            There are “SJW” equivalents on “the opposite side” of the political spectrum but essentially everyone relatively reasonable recognizes how misguided and idiotic those people are. So, rather than feeding those trolls, many try to address the absurdities of those who think every conversation is a good time to jump in and accuse people of being racist for no apparent reason (“…but if you connect all of these things that have nothing to do with it and cynically assume the worst of everyone, then you know the racist illuminati is behind it!” :-P). But, of course, if you do that, you must be a Trump-loving fascist who hates minorities and immigration and children having healthcare or something. Can’t be immensely differing from and way more nuanced than that.

            Is it any wonder that those who kneejerk in the “other direction” wind up getting worse as well? We need some sane voices who can sift through all these things but the media doesn’t spotlight those…as, while those “pieces” draw ire from both “extremes,” they don’t draw enough “controversy clicks” from those who are reasonable and possibly “in the middle” (or at least not living predominately in an immensely-oversimplified false dichotomy as far as political attitudes). And what “we” (much of the media) really want more than an informed populace are those sweet, sweet CLICKS! ($$$$$$$$$$)

            “Brainwash yourself into believing everything we say. Because we need the money!”

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The media is very left leaning at the moment to the point a balanced view is not accepted in case it offends the left on a particular topic.It’s easy to cry racism but difficult for someone to admit when they’re wrong and acting stupid. It’s a sad day when someone can online make a fuss and get attention over a store not carrying enough black jumpers but mostly white ones.

          • M33

            That’s because AntiFA cleared them out of the black ones.
            😅

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Somehow I don’t think Antifa have heard of the phrase “sharing is caring”. Ha, ha!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You exhibit why these terms gain traction — because those of us on the other side have been “pussies” for too many years…hence, look who is president now.

            I don’t really care if it’s unpopular, or if you or others disagree, but I am going to do my part to redefine terms like SJW and PC. And yes, I am PC, and proud of it — I consider it important to think before I say things so as to not offend diverse groups of humans — I AM PC AND AM PROUD TO BE PC.

            Careful, considered thinking about how to respond to such terms is what allowed good Americans in the center and left to be browbeaten into the situation we are in now. Enough is enough. No more “being a pussy” and letting the alt-right define me/us.

          • Ace Stephens

            You exhibit why these terms gain traction — because those of us on the
            other side have been “pussies” for too many years…hence, look who is
            president now.

            You’re taking the entirely wrong approach. When people see “the other side” (doing what they perceive as) getting more vehement and extreme, they respond similarly. They (often though not always) shouldn’t but they do. In fact, that’s what you’re doing right now.

            If you can somehow indicate that this (that your saying, “NO, STICK TO OUR GUNS BUT HARDER BECAUSE WE’VE SEEN THE OTHER SIDE GROW MORE EXTREME!”) isn’t the case…then you’ll disprove my point. But…that’s almost what you’re saying exactly here. So you’re just proving my point.

            But you think “the other side” doesn’t function in the same way you do psychologically because you’re caught up on oversimplified in-group/out-group thinking but that…is why they do function similarly. They’re just generally of the opposite in-group/out-group perceptions.

            I don’t really care if it’s unpopular, or if you or others disagree, but
            I am going to do my part to redefine terms like SJW and PC.

            And thereby make matters worse through your “advocacy,” thus proving yourself an “SJW.” Which I guess you don’t care about being labeled because you think it’s a good thing. But it still harms genuine, forward-thinking agendas. So I do take some issue with the concept. But suppose you can do whatever you want in that regard.

            I consider it important to think before I say things so as to not offend
            diverse groups of humans — I AM PC AND AM PROUD TO BE PC.

            And, thus, you turn yourself into a joke that fuels your seeming “opponents.” And part of the reason you do that is because what you present is an immense oversimplification of what “PC” is as far as the general populace views it – it is condoning depriving people of their ability to freely express themselves (without needless social censure) in order to avoid upsetting people (even if those people deserve to be upset in some cases…which means you calling someone out on their racism often isn’t actually PC either – but would it be okay for someone to tell you not to do that and say they’re proud to tell you that? I bet you wouldn’t think so. But a stunning lack of self-awareness regarding the consequences of their behavior is a hallmark of those rightfully accused of being “SJWs”…). This can and often does even include facts/research/statistics/etc. that are “impolite” to mention (or simply go against a predominant bias).

            Just like you can be a social justice advocate without being a social justice warrior (if you have any grasp of perspective) – you can be considerate in expression without being “PC.” And, similarly to “SJW,” some throw around “PC” unfairly to refer simply to people they disagree with politically who happen to do things like suggest that a few more characters that aren’t white might not be a bad thing in a given work. Oh, the horror that people who aren’t white exist!

            But “correcting that” isn’t done by pretending it’s not plainly-viewed as a negative.

            Careful, considered thinking about how to respond to such terms is what
            allowed good Americans in the center and left to be browbeaten into the
            situation we are in now. Enough is enough. No more “being a pussy” and
            letting the alt-right define me/us.

            Good luck on further alienating moderates or those in the center (although I’m sure some adamant “SJW”-types would simply insist that they’re part of the problem for being such – as in, not accusing everyone of being racist/fascist/etc. just for not falling in-line with the “correct” political stances) and losing more elections. Thanks for screwing it up for the rest of us who actually favor Democrats.

            Thanks for making life harder for everyone while saying you want to make things better simply because you don’t understand how your actions/attitudes/etc. influence others (who either copy you and push others away or are pushed away). I guess you are an “SJW,” through and through. 🙁

            So “self-identify as a negative thing”-away!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It is. I don’t think Oracle should be going around saying that.

    • Charles Baxter

      Social liberalism is the ideology of collective liberties and rights that favors social welfare and justice. It comes in a political and economic form. It is one of two dominate types of liberalism (the other being its predecessor classical liberalism).

      Like classical liberalism, social liberalism is a left-wing ideology of liberty and equality. Unlike the classically left-wing classical liberalism, which favors liberty on issues of state, social liberalism mixes in classically conservative planks like taxation, regulations on individuals, groups, and businesses, and more in an effort to ensure social justice and welfare via government.

      Social liberalism is considered a socially left wing ideology (despite its mixed nature). It generally comes in populist and elitist forms that differ in their positions on to what extent to government should be used to ensure social justice.

      At an extreme, social liberalism can, given the above, become puritanical and authoritative with its use of collective power (as we can see in prohibition for example.) Its focus on social progress puts in direct odds with its antithesis social conservatism on most, but not all, issues (after-all social conservatism also has a mixed nature as well, and can itself become puritanical and authoritative).

    • Pedro Ferreira

      There’s left leaning and there’s selfish political taking sides aka social justice fighting.

  • James

    Sounds good. I like my Trek allegorical.

    Star Trek is a left leaning show from the get-go. They should embrace that and really run with it. Sure, they might upset some people, but art is supposed to be challenging.

  • Havenbull

    oh boy, here we go.

  • M33

    Knew this was coming..

    *sigh*

    Look folks, Hollywood really doesn’t understand the difference between nationalism and racial nationalism.
    BIG DIFFERENCE.
    Look it up!

    Klingon “isolationism” being the same as USA reforming its immigration system to match that of Canada or New Zealand and enforcing our existing immigration laws?
    That’s just absurd.
    If these folks even read the President’s platform, they’d see the words “We want people coming in to our country, but they have to come in legally.” Hollywood shellacking racism over it is so tiring.
    DPRK– that’s isolationism.
    Reducing our immigration from an unprecedent 1 million people a year to 500,000 is NOT isolationism.

    And comparing UFP choices to America’s choices regarding DPRK, incinuating we are instigating matters is simply ridiculous.
    They have been taking the world’s money, lying to everyone, and still making their bombs.
    And somehow USA is on the same moral ground when we are responding to their increasingly real threats of annihilating us and our allies?
    That’s sheer lunacy.

    As an inpendent, this kind of polarized thinking drives me crazy, and I am not surprised that the new Trek writers are pushing it either–it fits the echochamer environment they work in.
    I will take this paper thin “allegorical” nonsense with a grain of salt and hope thay these stories stand on their own two feet within the Star Trek story universe.
    If not, they just decided to write off a substancial portion if their viewing audience.

    • DC Forever

      Lol, how about we wait and see it first before yo get all hissy-fit defensive about it?

      • M33

        What does “seeing” it have to do with my response to the writers own words?

        I still plan to see it, naturally.

        • DC Forever

          You seem to be taking it as an affront to your own conservative views, but I frankly don’t see how you can make that jump based on such limited info?

          • M33

            “a commentary on our own divided nation — in terms of Trump supporters and non-Trump supporters”

            “The Klingons are going to help us really look at certain sides of ourselves and our country. Isolationism is a big theme. Racial purity is a big theme.”

            “Should we let people in? Do we want to change?”

            Their own words. You see the theme, right?
            It is clear where they stand. I am commenting on the perspectives they are presenting, which I find to be incorrect as they are lumping anyone who supported Trump’s platform as being isolationist white-nationalists.
            I am not commenting on the show itself.

          • DC Forever

            Lol – OK, oh if your political leanings are such that you don’t want to examine those issues, well, I am not going to convince you otherwise. I welcome those issues being examined. And this is what Star Trek has always done, and I am at least going to wait and actually see it before I go off and write some long-written political essay either supporting or condemning it.

            And for Christ’s sake, they specifically said that they already wrote that part of the story first and later noticed that it had some parallels to Korea in the current controversy – so I think you are getting your panties all bunched up with your defensiveness on America’s policies without even knowing what we will see in those episodes?

          • M33

            LOL
            I will share in your laughter.
            I certainly am the type to want to have any conversation about political leaning (as you may have seen in other posts of mine).
            I enjoy those conversations, because the only way we can advance ourselves as a society is by having conversations of differing viewpoints.
            They have made their stance pretty clear, even when it morphed into DPRK matters.
            They see their threats to annihilate us and our words of warning if they attack as “both sides having strong opinions”.
            If someone points a gun at you and keeps shooting aside you as they keep saying they plan to kill you, you responding in self defense is not having a “strong opinion”– that’s called survival, especially after you have given every chance you can to dissuade them from continuing shooting at you.
            I will discuss the politics presented as they have presented it.
            I am also free to comment on it, too.
            I accept that you and others may not agree, also, but discussion is key.

            No panties, though. Boxers, actually, if you must know.

          • DC Forever

            DSC aside, regarding the DPRK, like Obama and Bush 2 before him, Trump doesn’t have the balls to launch a massive miilitary strike to bring down that gov’t. We should have done that a decade ago.

            So we have nukes aimed at us now by that crazy MF in North Korea, and what does Trump do? In the middle of the North Korea crisis he holds a national address to the nation that says we are going back into Afghanistan? WTF?

          • M33

            I agree with you that DPRK should have been dealt with long ago, especially when China was not the regional power it is today.
            Every president has continued to push the problem to the next people and now the mole has turned into a festering cancer.
            Clinton was wrong to create an agreement that gave them all the money they needed to develop “non-weapon-related” nuclear energy in exchange for conditional monitoring of their “development”.
            That completely backfired.
            At this point, if we attack them, China will attack us. They have said so.
            China has said that they if DPRK attacks us, they will remain neutral.
            The reality is DPRK cannot exist as as its own entity. It exists only because China allows it to.
            And since preemptive military action is not an option, we can only get DPRK to stop if we force China to make them, and that only occurs economically…
            When we hear the President considering cutting off all trade from nations that do business with DPRK, and 90% of DPRK’s trade is with China… well, you see the effect here.
            China would rather sacrifice it radioactive leverage tool (DPRK) in order to keep access to American markets.

          • DC Forever

            I have my doubts about the that threat working. Do you realize that the majority of American manufactured products have components that are made in China?

            Following through on that threat would likely collapse the US stock market and drastically shrink GDP.

          • M33

            I understand. I had my concerns, too.
            But sometimes it is the threat that is needed. In some sense, it is a sort of “nuclear button” as well.
            Additionally, though, there have been many companies that were manufacturing things over in China that have now moved back to the US.
            We are actually a lot more self-reliant as a nation than we think.
            And, even if we were to sever trade with China, we have other allies that are eager and waiting to take up what China would no longer be able to.
            India is a prime example. Huge population, eager workers, and a clear ally.
            There would a shift, sure, but China’s economy is in far greater danger than the US is from a trade cutoff.
            The stakes are high… but so is a nuclear standoff like right now with DPRK.

            Hey, I’ll take trying something rather than doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
            Trump could fail spectacularly.
            Or he could succeed.
            But a military intervention or waiting for DPRK to nuke us… bad all the way round for all of us.

          • DC Forever

            It’s worth a shot a guess. But we need to be proactive in presenting the military threat. Why don’t we have 3 carrier task forces right now in the Sea of Japan?

            I don’t think anyone believes we will use the military option, and that reduces our leverage.

          • M33

            And that is why DPRK keeps doing what they are doing.
            They know we will not attack them.
            No amount of carriers we position near them is going to get them to stop.
            Only China–their true master–can back them down.
            And even with economic lever after lever being put on China, they still historically voted on the UN security council in favor of strongest sanctions against DPRK.
            Russia now says its time to get them to stop and talk.
            Next is China calling for DPRK to stop talk.
            Once that happens, China can remove the DPRK problem and save face that they “had nothing to do with DPRK’s aggressiveness”, nuclear problem goes away, and China retains US economic benefits.

            Worth trying!

          • M33

            This is in reference to our conversation about DPRK, and China soon to call for talks.
            UN SC vote for strongest ever sanctions against them is tomorrow.

            https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/906404343825432576

          • M33

            An update on the DPRK, fyi.
            Even with racheting economic pressure on China, they are still unprecedently voting along with the world in strongest ever sanctions against DPRK.
            The path might be crazy, but is somehow seems to be working.
            If Trump is stupid, at the very least his military and economic cabinet members have some keen understandings in guiding this situation along to try to avoid all out war.

            https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/907388630989144066

        • Ace Stephens

          I…still will give Discovery a fair shake.

          “WHY DON’T YOU SEE IT FIRST, YOU BABY?!”

          …This is what frustrates me about “politics” right now (and probably would forever in the past but I see it so much more lately than I noticed before…). You basically say something in a plain manner but they hear some insidious thing and react in a snarky or condemnatory way which has no (realistic) relationship to what you said. FFS.

    • Synaesthesiaa

      > I am a lifelong Trek fan.

      Must be weird watching Space Communism and pretending it’s anything but. How’s the mental gymnastics working out for you?

      • M33

        ???
        Where is the Federation is the State given absolute authority over everything?
        Trek champions the values of classical liberalism and natural rights as defined by Constitution and other documents.

        But space-communism is pretty funny!

        • Synaesthesiaa

          “When Lily Sloane asked him how much the USS Enterprise-E cost to build, Picard told her, “The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century…. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.”

          Your head probably hurts from all the contortions you go through to reconcile a relatively space-communism utopia with “lol teh conservatism”

          • M33

            LOL
            Actually one of my favorite lines.
            In fact, I have often pondered on how does a moneyless society operate. There’s an interesting book called Trekonomics which tries to tackle the matter and does an okay job of it, but still leaves glaring holes in how it all would work. Still the best text on the concept regarding Trek.

            But see, you can have classical liberalism without capitalism, and subjugating the individual to the State.
            Classical liberalism is about how we as a group give up some of our natural rights for the group benefit exchange, but in the end the State does not have final say over our natural rights.
            In the progression from socialism to communism to fascism, the individual becomes secondary to the state.
            Federation is a republic, and classic liberalism its operating system.
            Hey, Id love a society like Treks, but we have to have a massive existential awakening to acheive it.
            We can’t legislate it or mandate it through communism, because human nature always comes out in the end. This is why that system as a sole philosophy always gets altered or fails.

  • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

    Saw this coming, can’t resist pushing the agenda…

    It is inconsistent with TOS as well but I’m sure the Discovery fanboys will defend it.

    • DC Forever

      Saw this trolling post coming from you.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      “can’t resist pushing the agenda…”

      No, you can’t.

  • bytes

    Trek has always been a conservative show from the get go. Peace, science, working hard, developing a hard fought career, fear of losing a job (even in a money free society), respecting others, exploration of the human soul, discovering the unknown, advancement of an large organization, and encouraging all to join.

    • M33

      True. It has towed Lincoln-Republicanism since its inception.
      Often they did Constitution-thumping, and championing equal treatment under the law.
      Just look at how thrilled Kirk was to meet Space-Lincoln!

    • Synaesthesiaa

      >Trek has always been a conservative show from the get go.

      lol

      • prometheus59650

        There aren’t enough lulz on the internet to cover the absurdity of bytes.

      • bytes

        The point of this, was simply to troll liberal viewers attempting to own the show from non liberal viewers, who deem such people as unworthy of Star Trek.

        • Ace Stephens

          It was so obvious what you were doing that the notion that anyone may have come close to “missing it” is…frustrating regarding potential implications.

    • Robbins

      trek conservative lol

    • Blimpboy

      I view TOS and it’s Non Interference Directive as a classic example of Libertarian views.

    • bytes

      The point of this, was simply to troll liberal viewers attempting to own the show from non liberal viewers, who deem such people as unworthy of Star Trek.

  • JP

    I wonder how many people are going to pay CBS for this. They don’t even have all of Trek-dom interested and are losing the interest of more by the day… they’re going to need a big new audience to pay to see this.

    Basically it’ll just be a case of seeing how long CBS is willing to fund it out of pride. Production value will drop as the $$ dries up and All Access subscriptions don’t come in… hopefully they “pull a Coto” much sooner than it took Enterprise.

    And great Trek TV will take even longer to finally happen once this experiment fails 🙁

    • SpaceCadet

      I’m signing up now and letting my friends know about the show!

    • Thomas Elkins

      I won’t be, but if the show is good I’ll get it on Blu-ray.

      • M33

        Would be even cooler if it came out on 4K, too…

    • mr joyce

      im in the uk, i signed up to netflix to watch the show…

      on a side note, i really like netflix for other things on there too, i never knew how good it was lol

      • M33

        And the visual quality is excellent also.

        • mr joyce

          yeh, youre right…they support hd on the two top priced price plans, and ultra hd on the top priced one.. discovery should look good on a big tv screen

          • M33

            I’ve found too that sometimes visual effects that look kinda junk on trailers then look excellent on their full intended resolution.
            The VFX of Discovery may look stunning on HD and 4K.

        • Lora

          Visual style is the worst part. It has zero continuity with prime universe canon.

          • M33

            I wasn’t referring to visual “style”.
            I was referring to image quality.
            Believe me, I would have loved a more TOS look to the new series.

          • SpaceCadet

            Star Trek: Enterprise visual style was more advanced than TOS. Discovery is the same way. It would be silly to make this new series look like TOS because TOS was a product of its era, how it visualized the future when it was made and the limitations of its production budget. Therefore your idea of visual style continuity being prime universe canon is irrelevant. It’s called getting with the times.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Netflix has it’s limitations.

    • I signed up as well. Many have.

      • Lora

        Nope, majority of fans do not care for this. Because it is not canon ( for prime universe at least ).

        • Please post your proof the “Majority” of trek fans world wide do not care for DSC. And yes, it is both canon and prime.

  • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

    I just bought TOS complete series blu ray for $24 (great deal) so I will be watching that while Discovery tries too hard to be “kewl”

    • Your Worst Nightmare

      Enjoy! I thought you hated that steampunk TOS stuff?

    • DC Forever

      Stop the spamming. This has nothing to do with this article

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Are we suppose to “kare”?

  • Promoboy

    A bit off topic..
    But does anyone know what today is?
    Hint hint… Happy Anniversary Star Trek.
    At 51, you seem to be looking better than ever.
    And to anyone who gets BBC America , enjoy the Star Trek Marathon. Now playing: Space Seed.

    • M33

      Too cool.
      51 years and still going strong.
      One of the greatest science fiction shows ever!
      May it live long and prosper.

  • Not a shock, trek kinda always tackled this kinda thing.

  • Fiery Little One

    I wouldn’t expect anything less. If Trek isn’t trying to say something, it’s not Trek.

  • pittrek

    Well that sounds weird. I hope it will be subtle

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      I doubt it will be subtle

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        I’ll take your word for it, because who here is more qualified to judge a lack of subtlety?

        • mr joyce

          lol, good one 🙂

  • Robbins

    lol discovery won’t be connected to enterprise.it’s a reboot and they think trekkers will sign up for cbs streaing if they claim it’s prequel.

    trek has always taken things from world and disguised them.not that these writers would know since to them trek was abrams films.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Maybe stick to your Pretty Little Liars posts…just saying…lol

    • Sorry, as much as you guys spread this lie, its not fact. This is not a reboot.

      • Robbins

        so what is there in show despite they claim that it is part of exsisting trek universe.because i see nothing in trailers.10 years before original show lol

        • mr joyce

          Once the show airs, then we will know. Or have you somehow seen it already?

          • Robbins

            they haven’t done much to convince trekkers of that.hardly only person who commented this.and it looks more like a kelven spin-off than anything to do with prime.

          • mr joyce

            The makers have said it’s linked, ok we don’t know how, but id take their word for it if i were sceptical, rather than just constantly coming up with theories based upon theories based upon theories based upon a few minutes of trailers and promo footage. Watch the show first before you judge, then come back and tell everyone why you hate it when you’ve seen a few episodes

          • Lora

            Sorry but why would anyone spend money to learn these informations. That is what they want. We have trailers. And everything in trailers looks nothing like prime universe. Klingons look like different species.

          • Lora

            Sorry but why would anyone spend money to learn these informations. That is what they want. We have trailers. And everything in trailers looks
            nothing like prime universe. Klingons look like different species.

        • They have stated its prime timeline. Visual style is not canon. ENT looked a 100 + years more advanced than TOS as well.

          • Lora

            Visual style is canon. How things look is canon.

          • No, its not. Its a visual style. Canon is events, not a set look. this is an idea Trek fans have ran with that is not fact or how more or less any settings handles this.

            TOS is a 50 year old TV show and it looks it. We no longer think 2250 looks like what people in 1966 thought it did.

          • Lora

            False. In Star trek, how things look is canon. How uniforms, ships, aliens, tehnology look is canon. It seems that you know nothing about Star Trek canon.

          • Nope. That is not what canon is. That is a trek fan idea of what canon is, but not what canon is.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You have contradicted yourself about this in the past that’s why people are confused.

          • Lora

            Also we can see TOS sets in Enterprise. Even the ship of the same class as Kirk Enterprise.

          • No, we see an alt timeline give a homage to a 1960’s TV show. It looks crappy and laughable and they made fun of it as well.

            No one will believe the look went from ENT to retro 1960’s acid trip that is TOS.

          • Lora

            Nope, you see a canon ship. TOS sets and ships can be seen in every canon prime universe series. How things and tehnology look is part of canon. And it looked great.

            https://s26.postimg.org/sn098kofd/ent_s4_iamd_defiant.jpg

          • If by “great” you mean looking like an antique the NX outclassed in every way…sure it looked “great” if outdated and old

          • Ace Stephens

            The exact phrasing of this is baffling to me. Fashions and styles change. Regarding some elements, I think the argument that some design elemens would likely be “left behind” (and unlikely to recur) can be made. Regarding other things? …I’m not so sure.

            So “outdated and old” can be relative (perhaps you only see that so immensely because you are “stuck” in the modern frame of reference). For instance, some styles prevalent in certain periods have reappeared later on despite differing social, technological, etc. circumstances. Or what you see today as “old-fashioned” could come back into style in various forms.

            I’m not arguing against you that there is a disparity. I’m just saying those terms may not be a justification for suggesting they don’t fit together. There are some clothes from the 1960s that fit right in today, for instance. Of course, some other clothes from the 1960s don’t. And some styles that were big a decade ago were big a few decades earlier. Certainly the expectations with designs of “technology” differ at least somewhat but who knows? That may change…

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Shannon thinks that fan films like Star Trek Continues are rubbish because they keep visual continuity of TOS. I really don’t get her argument there.

          • You can not justify that ship design as judt “retro” its simply old. Its not retro style, its just old. It screams ot at every look and more do when placed nect to a design basef off of it.

          • Ace Stephens

            I never used the term “retro” – its applicability to what I’m referring to is…spotty (“…Beam me up!”). There are hairstyles now which were popular in the sixties. And then there are things like the overall fashion displayed in The Way To Eden. I don’t think that particular range of clothing/hairstyles/etc. will come back collectively, no (not that it was fully-aligned as design choices with the period in which it was made either…). But that doesn’t change that some things can kind of come and go as far as accepted style/design/etc. choices.

            Again, I’m not saying the whole thing (TOS’s tech design – even ignoring the “cheap” means) works (and it certainly doesn’t regarding a “modern” look – but that’s the point as forty years from now the “modern” look will have changed and may even have some elements of design which appear similar to past ones we now find “outdated”…although I’m not suggesting a “retro” intention as it wouldn’t necessarily match in any comprehensive regard – although I suppose that the advent of the flip phone could cause many to suggest it was “retro” in relation to the tricorder, I don’t find that exactly accurate despite the inspiration). I’m just saying that, regarding various things (which we’ll likely only know once we “get there” – the future), what appears “old” now may not appear so “old” later. It’s rather ironic but nonetheless true.

            And I must stress again (just so I am in no way misconstrued) that I don’t mean to suggest we’re headed toward a future which looks exactly like TOS or that ENT appropriately sets up that expectation for itself. Just that “what’s old is new again” is a saying for a reason and doesn’t strictly relate simply to retro approaches. I merely don’t think things are as simple as the “old and outdated” term usage here suggests.

          • Once more tOS looks old. You can not fox thst or act like its “old is new” retro styling. Its just old.

          • Ace Stephens

            I feel like you’re ignoring my point (including or especially the portion which allowed for agreement with you) if you think that simply reiterating that addressed it in any way. I never said it’s “old is new” or “retro” (although I did mention the former as part of a phrase pertaining to patterns which reemerge over time). I just stressed that relative “modernity” is just that – relative (and so the use of some terms may wind up not being as accurate as they currently seem).

          • Here is the issue man. You can not make it look like the TOS and it not look old, the Bridge of the TOS connie does not look “relative” its pure up 1960’s tech. It does not look like style changed and went with a “older” or “retro” look, it just is old, dated tech.

            The ship design for the connie is the same way. You can not look at its forms and not see its old. Its not a throw back design, its primitive and old. You put it next to the NX, which was derived from the TOS design and its screams “I am a model T”

            Every single thing about it screams “Old 1960’s TV show” you have to update it. The Kelvin timeline was one such try at making old styling look retro and not dated. If it worked on not, depends on who you ask.

          • Ace Stephens

            It’s not a throwback design…

            I keep telling you I’m not talking about “retro” or “throwback” stuff (not that such things don’t occur in conjunction with what I am referring to) and yet you keep suggesting designs based on the past rather than designs which roughly share similarities with past ones as a matter of course/style/function/etc.

            For instance, widepy-available motor vehicles started out rather “boxy” and then became less angular and then moved back to more angles and have been in a roughly less angular form for the past twenty-to-thirty years. Do I think the returns were “retro”? No, the style comprehensively is clearly of its era (one is highly unlikely to mistake an “angular” ’70s car for an “angular” ’20s car)…but the features recur.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Shannon has trouble understanding that what we see on screen is visual canon. She contradicts herself a lot about this. It’s very annoying.

    • Lora

      I agree. This series is not part of prime universe. Because it does not fit already established canon. The more they speak about canon, the more is
      obvious that creators of this series know nothing about star trek canon and rules of that canon. In star trek universe klingons do not look like that. Klingons have hair. Klingon hair is even mentioned in the dialogue many times. Worf was klingon and it had hair.

  • Thomas Elkins

    The story definitely sounds interesting. I’ve said it before, but I would love to see a civil rights type movement featuring the augment virus Klingons. Having characters like Kor go from being out casts to some of the most respected warriors in history would be an interesting journey.

    • M33

      Within the Klingon story that has developed over the entire franchise, it would be really neat to see them create a story that builds on what Enterprise left behind.
      Cool internal consistency, if so!

      • Thomas Elkins

        I would love to see Jolene Blalock return as T’Pol.

        • M33

          THAT would be very cool!
          Or hey! Even Admiral Archer!
          ST2009 had him alive around the same time period, too!

          • Thomas Elkins

            I vaguely remember hearing a rumor Archer was going to cameo. It’s probably untrue, but it has been tradition for a character from previous series to pass the torch in the pilot episode.

            McCoy for TNG
            Picard for DS9
            Quark for VOY

            Enterprise was a prequel so no one from Voyager cameoed, (although it felt like half the VOY cast directed ENT), but they did include Zefram Cochrane. DSC takes place after ENT though so someone from that series should be there if they wanted to start the series right.

  • Snap

    “Like sewage, smartphones and Donald Trump, some things are just inevitable.”

    • Tom Cruise Never Phones It IN

      Like people who still can’t accept that Hilary lost…

    • M33

      Hey — a Doctor Who quote!
      Nice mixing of fandoms!

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Guess who was behind that show, a feminist!

  • robjoh

    Really looking forward to STD,just hope it’s not too much like GoT and WD,two shows I just hate. If so,I’ll just stick to Orville,lol!

    • Pedro Ferreira

      I hope so too mate.

  • Lora

    I hate everything about these series. It looks like Abrams star trek. This does not fit in prime universe canon.

    • It looks nothing like the Kelvin timeline, other than modern filming style.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Visual continuity is the same which I know you don’t believe in.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      LOL. We heard you the first 20 times. Time for some new material.

  • TUP

    As it should. In fact the idea of Klingons as not necessarily bad but different and our view of them dove tails nicely with the entirety of the franchise and how the relationship between “our” side and the Klingons developed and evolved.

  • Maria Kelly

    The only thing I care about is finding out whether Michelle Yeoh makes it pass the first episode.

    • SpaceCadet

      I’m guessing yes. This being more of a seiralized series I think they are going to take longer to flesh out the characters. I just can’t see Yeoh being killed off in the first hour. Several episodes in, maybe even the second, seems more likely to me.

  • Tone

    Great, so we all know the good guys will be lefties, and the bad guys will be Trump, and his supporters, portrayed like modern day Nazi extremists. I Think I know where this story will go, boldly where every leftie celebrity has gone before.

    Why can’t a Star Trek series be original, and different to the shit we have to put up with in our day to day lives?

    • M33

      The one thing I always found to be TOS’s coolest and most honorable trait was how it approached an audience that they didn’t necessarily agree with politically. Instead of attempting to alienate them or cater to one audience type with similiar views, they presented their colorblind society as just the norm, not making an issue out of it, and telling good stories with good characters that give us the best of humanity.
      It allowed those who weren’t necessarily openminded to the concepts of inclusivity by allowing them to enjoy what tale was being told and become naturally accustomed to the people in it over time, to learn to grow and enjoy them as people.
      It is a subtle approach, but it is in my opinion one of Trek’s most enduring qualities.
      But, hey, that’s just me!

      • Tone

        Oh, please don’t get me wrong, I love Star Trek when it’s holding up a mirror to current society. However in the current climate, I am concerned that the writers and producers will not be able to keep and objective eye on the world today, and turn it into a thinly veiled attack on anything that is not extreme left.

        But we will all find out soon enough.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Why can’t a Star Trek try to resemble being central???

  • Pedro Ferreira

    The only bit I care about which Discovery fans refuse to acknowledge “Harberts’ comment on “racial purity” certainly seems to lend a bit of credence to our theory that the Enterprise-era Augment virus storyline may come into play during Discovery.”

  • Ben

    Smells like Ghost Busters 3 to me.

  • Muldfeld

    Glad to read that there’s some political commentary. Ira Steven Behr was THE BEST at that because he challenged the powers that be and the establishment on economic issues (problems with unfettered capitalism and poverty) as well. This show should hire Melinda Snodgrass to write some stuff, too! J.J. Abrams ruined the franchise in many ways, not the least of which was the absence of politics. Happy someone is bringing it back.