Still images can't be kin-

>still images can't be kin-

>Real
>Liberals

Must be a troll pic, nobody's that stupid.

I want you to explain how each of these characters are modern liberals please OP

I don't get it. How can you make something as non-nuanced as book Dany even more non-nuanced?

>muh spokes muh weels

I only got through the first four episodes, but I don't remember that bald girl saying much of anything -- much less expounding liberal views.

>Negan blocks their path
>Bashes Dr Who's head so hard he turns back into Christopher Eccleston
>They kill all the other faggots and take over the universe
>Winning

>people can't let stories inspire them
>you

Real liberals don't vote for the """liberal""" party

""((liberals))""

zozzle

Why the little girl from stranger things is a liberal?

>grow
Real liberals never grow up.

Not even together they are strong. All that money and celebrity support and they still couldn't elect their old hag.

When will they learn?

Alone We Are Weak, Like A Single Twig

But Together We Are Strong, Like A Mighty Faggot

Holy shit whoever shopped Benji's face on there deserves a medal. Saved.

it was a Sup Forums maymay started after he left breitbart

short hair

trans

She gets the boys to run a train on her

>liberals
>fascist rhetoric
ok

>Only white people
>One and a half women
>Seven homosexuals

Yeah, they are liberals

>This much cancer in one OP
Sup Forums was a mistake

Lets see Danerys is still an absolute monarchist, Hamilton in real life wasn't a singing black man, and all we really know about Dumbledore's politics is he was gay and in favour of child sacrifices.

those are all fictional characters

None of those characters are "liberals", but you know what they DO have in common? They all hail from some of the dullest franchises in their mediums. But truly the worst offended on that list is Harry Potter; the dullest franchise in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody, just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>Dumbledore fucking dies
>Don't know who that guy is
>The Doctor fucks up everything and dies
>Don't know who the kid is
>Dr Strange doesn't achieve anything, only manages to stall
>Dany is a tyrant
>Jeb was got fucking Censured