Tyler Lloyd

@philipaklein Sowing the seeds of their own destruction, methinks…

This comment is based on a ridiculous LendingTree analysis that a household needs $400k a year in income to comfortably afford childcare. That would rule out ~ 95% of households. There is a concerted effort by the cultural left to dissuade people from having kids.

I post this every year during Holy Week! 😂 It cracks me up every time. Good Christian humor.

@JonahDispatch This is the real reason we’re developing AI technology.

@KenGardner11 @NewReaganCaucus The word you’re looking for is “retreat”

I see three big items that are missing from this list: 1. Creating the preconditions for a general revolt against the regime. 2. Ending their nuclear weapons program. 3. Securing the Strait of Hormuz. This is mission creep, but in the wrong direction.

Don't reboot Lord of the Rings (nor was there need to reboot Harry Potter). Reboot Rings of Power to something true to the books.

@RapidResponse47 @VP

.@VP: "I would bet every dollar that I own that the next time the Democrats have control of the Senate, they will break the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and destroy this country. We have to do it NOW in order to save the country."

@ericmetaxas @JoelWBerry @Franklin_Graham Trump will share anything that flatters him… 🙄

Holy Week begins with President Trump sharing the Gospel. He posted the letter written to him by @Franklin_Graham declaring that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. We have never had a President so pro-faith.

@dilanesper How racist of the Right to call out the Left’s racism…

people came back to me when i said that conservative legal thinkers are stoking racism, and said "Ed isn't like that, he's raising real stuff". But this is the second time in a week he's mocked the "wise Latina" comment from a decade and a half ago.

Frodo was on a path to become like Gollum. In the end he succumbed to temptation. He failed. It was only the mercy he showed to Gollum that saved him, the quest, and the world.

@Handre @BasedMikeLee In theory, a flexible money supply is superior. But in practice, I’m not so confident…

The gold standard worked because it made every government deficit a direct assault on the nation's money supply—and markets punished politicians immediately for their fiscal recklessness. Under gold, when Congress spent beyond tax revenues, the Treasury had to borrow real money from real savers. No magical money printing. No Federal Reserve buying government bonds with newly created dollars. Politicians faced the same constraint as every household: you can only spend what someone else saved first. And foreign creditors could demand gold redemption at any time, creating an automatic brake on inflationary spending. The mechanics were beautifully simple. Britain's pound sterling maintained its gold parity for over 200 years because the Bank of England raised interest rates whenever gold flowed out of the country. Higher rates attracted foreign capital and made domestic credit scarce—forcing the government and private borrowers to compete for the same limited pool of savings. Deficit spending meant crowding out private investment, and voters saw the immediate consequences in higher borrowing costs. You can see this discipline in action during the Panic of 1893. Cleveland's administration faced massive gold outflows as investors lost confidence in America's fiscal position. Instead of printing money, Cleveland arranged private gold purchases from J.P. Morgan and European bankers—paying market rates for the privilege. The federal budget had to balance because the alternative was national bankruptcy and gold standard abandonment. Modern economists call this "barbarous" because it prevented their beloved countercyclical spending. Damn right it did. Politicians couldn't promise infinite benefits funded by invisible taxes on savers. Every war, every welfare program, every government expansion required convincing actual people to lend their actual savings.

“Will Trump prevail in Iran or will this war be his downfall?” It could easily be both. Iran has been at war with the United States and all its neighbors since 1979. It has spawned murders and atrocities and its fanatical leadership has sought — and found — means of overwhelming the defenses of other nations. Not just nukes, but icbms and drones, which it aims at military and nonmilitary targets indiscriminately. The only way to find out a threat was imminent is to suffer the consequences of not acting preemptively. Somebody had to neutralize the Iranian threat, and the only nation with the power to do it is the US, and the only leader with the wisdom and the spine to do it is Trump. If Trump succeeds, his fanatical enemies in the US, who support causes every bit as insane as Iran's, will claim that the destruction of Iran's evil government was not “necessary,” because, see? They didn't have nukes. So just as the leaders of France and the UK would have been ousted if they had crushed Hitler back when it could have been done almost bloodlessly, and completely legally under the terms of the Versailles treaty, Trump will never be able to prove what “would have happened,” and his enemies, who have proven their contempt for law and their desire to create a permanent one-party state, will probably succeed in their aims. They will control the history-writing — they already control most of the press and universities — and so the fact that Trump preemptively saved the world from an evil warmongering state will be flipped on its head, and HE will be declared the evil warmonger. But if the attempt to suppress Iran fails, which will probably be the case if Trump does not deploy troops to break the back of the Iranian regime on the ground, the consequences will be so dire that again, Trump will be blamed for having “provoked” Iran with a “needless” war. So unless the American electorate behaves with unexpected wisdom, this attack is probably the most necessary and self-destructive act of Trump's administration. Necessary, because the fools who governed us from 2009-2017 and 2021-2025 did nothing but appease Iran's tyrants and enable them to oppress their own population while causing or abetting the worst state and nonstate actors in the world. Trump's successors, even if they have the will, will not have the power to destroy America's worst antagonists. The moment of possibility is now, Trump has taken it, and no matter how it turns out, it will be the weapon his fanatical, anti-democratic enemies use to destroy him.

@tarteArcEnCiel @artwithinpod No, it’s not. constitution.congress.gov/constitution/a…

@TylerDLloyd @artwithinpod Come on. If somebody is spewing homophobia, racism or misogyny and advocates against our human rights, it is obviously reasonable to stop them from speaking, make them lose their job and criminalize their speech. Why is it different for transphobia?

rewatching Harry Potter And The Order of The Phoenix and you kinda have to wonder now: does JK Rowling think the good guys in Harry Potter would be on her side today? does she think Harry, Ron and Hermione would be anti-trans? does she think Dolores Umbridge would be PRO-trans?

I have been silent about this for a long time, but I can no longer keep quiet about it in good conscience. The "Strait" of Hormuz isn't straight at all. It's super crooked. You can see in the helpful graphic I put together below. The elites don't want you to know this.

@saletan Aptly demonstrating how democrats’ insanity paved the way for Trump.

“One real positive of the Trump era,” says my wife, beginning a sentence with words I never thought I’d hear. The rest of the sentence turns out to be: “I no longer believe that civilization’s gonna collapse on account of climate change.”

@bonchieredstate @EWErickson Frodo offers himself as a sacrifice to carry the burden of all the world. He (until the end) resists the temptation that conquers all others. When Frodo’s strength fails, Sam carries him on his back. He too willingly sacrifices himself, knowing he is on a one-way trip to Mordor.

@bonchieredstate @EWErickson Aragorn is the long-promised king whose people don’t recognize him. He must pass through the lands of the dead before leading the spirits out of prison and returning to save his people. Gandalf descends below all, rises above all, slays the demon, dies, and is resurrected.

There's literally a character who dies and is resurrected.

@BitPaine The prequels should have started with Clone Wars. A teenage Anakin meets and helps Obi-Wan and becomes his padawan by the end of the first movie. Then spend a whole movie on Anakin’s temptation to the dark side. Then a movie about him destroying the Jedi until Obi Wan stops him.

basically everyone who saw these movies thought the same thing: > the music slaps > the lore is good > the set pieces (lightsaber fights, space battles, pod racing) are s-tier > sfx brought us to a new era BUT > the dialogue is flat and cringe > jar jar is a cursed character

My immediate reaction to Colbert writing a LOTR movie was - "No. Just no." Yes, I know he's a LOTR nerd. And it's at least a step above Rings of Power that someone involved in the project has been in the same room as Tolkien's books. But I neither trust anyone in modern-day Hollywood to do the great works of literature justice nor believe Colbert shares Tolkien's faith and values (and yes, I know he claims to be a Catholic). THAT BEING SAID, A FEW CONSIDERATIONS as I think the announcement was kinda confusing and there are some interesting bits of lore in Tolkien's writings that may shed some light on where this thing is going. 1.) The movie's stated goal appears to be getting chapters 3-8 of Fellowship on film - chapters mostly skipped by Peter Jackson for various reasons. This is the section of the book where Frodo fakes the move to Crickhollow, then meets Tom Bombadil and then faces the Barrow-wight (I think about a week's worth of time in the book). 2.) The movie uses a framing device set 14 years after Frodo leaves Middle-Earth. The framing device itself seems to have two concurrent plots: A PLOT --- Sam, Merry, and Pippin retrace their steps from the Shire through the Barrow-downs, perhaps thinking or talking to one another about what happened back in the day, and this is what sends us back to chaps 3-8 of Fellowship. --- --- (This journey is not mentioned anywhere in Tolkien's writings as far as I can tell. It's completely made up for this. Although, yes, I believe at the time it is set, all 3 of these Hobbits were still living in or near the Shire, and they certainly could have gone on walks together). B PLOT --- "Sam's daughter, Elanor, has discovered a long-buried secret and is determined to uncover why the War of the Ring was very nearly lost before it even began." This also is not mentioned anywhere in Tolkien - HOWEVER - Sam and Elanor do have a conversation when she's about 14, which was published in a couple of Christopher Tolkien's collections. The conversation centers around Elanor asking why beautiful things are fading away. Sam encourages his daughter that there are still good things in this world. And then Samwise reveals to her the secret that Frodo said he may be able to follow the elves to Valinor one day as well. OK SO LET ME EXPLAIN! No - it is too much; let me sum up. What we have here is Frodo & Friends traveling through the Old Forest, meeting Tom Bombadil, getting captured by the Barrow-wights, and then being rescued by said Bombadil. Told through a non-canon framing device (though plausible enough) of the 3 remaining Hobbits, 14 years after the books/movies end, following the old route East. And meanwhile, Sam's daughter is searching for some "long-buried secret." What could this be? Who knows. I will wildly speculate anyway: The movie's description says she uncovers how the War of the Ring was "nearly lost before it began." Since we know the flashback portions of the movie culminate with the Barrow-wight, it's likely to be centered around that. It may have something to do with the sword Merry got there that ended up slaying the Witch-King. Remember in the first movie, how Aragorn handed the hobbits swords and was like "here take these." (Me and my friends booed in the theater back in 2001 lol "THOSE ARE BARROW-BLADES! GIVE US BOMBADIL!"). Now, in this version, they'll be talking it over and be like "Remember how they said Aragorn just gave us those blades? That's not how it happened!" or something. Funny and too meta maybe - but it's very consistent with Tolkien (see his retcon of the Hobbit woven into the story). Also, in the book, Frodo very nearly puts the Ring on - imagining himself abandoning his friends and running free - before he fights the temptation and bravely faces the wight. There could be some plot device where she realizes how close they came to failing the quest right then and there. Elanor and Sam's conversation is centered around the slow fading away of beauty. This would tie in with Bombadil's talk in the books, where he talks about the thousands of years he's watched kingdoms rise and fall, etc. So I suspect whatever this side plot is about, it will all tie together nicely with Bombadil and the group's walk retracing their steps. In conclusion: Should you be excited about this movie? No. Do not get excited about anything from Hollywood these days. That is electing the way of pain. But does this have the potential to be faithful to Tolkien? I think it does. I think it's weird that they kind of buried the lede — if they'd framed it as Fellowship of the Ring: The Untold Story or something, or TOM BOMBADIL AND FRIENDS RUN AROUND NAKED ON THE GRASS, I'd pre-order my ticket on the spot. Do I think they'll pull it off? Eh. Remains to be seen. Even if Colbert's writing is strong and lore-faithful, it could be executed poorly. But I'm not as dismissive as I was at first (or really, have been about all Tolkien media in the past 20 years). There are some hurdles: I assume they'll need to use the same actors and de-age them for the flashback shots, which always looks kinda wonky. There are issues of being consistent with the original films. If they're basically trying to shoot an hour or two of content that could have seamlessly fit into Fellowship - that's a high bar to clear. Jackson's involved, yes, but he didn't always get Tolkien right either, and I suspect he won't direct. And Colbert & Hollywood despise a lot of the values Tolkien held dear. So I don't trust them, but who knows. And if they fail, well, there's always this thing called "a book" you can read that's way better than even Jackson's films.

“If Caitlin Clark could play in the NBA, everybody would applaud it. That would be an incredible thing. But if the last guy on the bench of an NBA team went to a WNBA team and started averaging 40 points, everybody would know that is BS." - Legendary Broadcaster Bob Costas Women’s sports should be female ONLY.