History Headscratchers / HouseOfCardsUS

3rd Feb '16 9:18:06 PM Peanutt
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
[[folder: Vicktor, are you in love?]] *For the life of me I can't figure out why Claire asked this. I would maybe sort of understand if Viktor had just began a new romance, but I'm not sure that's ever actually stated. It's only stated that he's recently divorced. It feels like a tasteless thing to ask a recent divorcee. But that's a moot point because Viktor states that Claire seems to always ask foreign politicians if they are in love. It seems like a rude/intrusive question to ask someone you don't know very well and have a semi-professional relationship with unless it's known that they are newly in a relationship and even then it's iffy. I don't understand it from a writing standpoint, because there were other ways to indicate Petrov was divorced. Or from a characterization standpoint, I can tell in the scene Claire is supposed to be coming off as charming and a good hostess, but it's a left field question that feels inappropriate and a weird question to have as standard dinner party banter. What am I missing? [[/folder]]
29th Jan '16 7:46:07 AM BanjoTCat
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** We've seen how Doug is without the direction given by Frank. Without a cause, without somebody to serve, Doug is aimless and succumbs to the chaos of his vices. There were moments of intimacy (with his physical therapist, the waitress in Missouri, and disastrously, Rachel), but they were fleeting and ultimately empty. He seems confounded by his brother's family life and when idle, Doug spends a lot of energy just trying to stay emotionally functional. Part of this is the result of Doug devoting so much of himself to Frank for so much time, but the damage is done. As we've also seen, it's not even a devotion to Frank in particular. He did try to serve Dunbar. He is a soldier at heart and without his work, Doug doesn't know what to do with himself.
29th Jan '16 7:35:25 AM BanjoTCat
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** The phone of the majority whip isn't of the greatest interest to the likes of TMZ or the Huffington Post, so no journalistic organ is going to exert themselves much to delve into those texts. While you can erase texts on your phone, there is a record stored in the carrier servers. It is not clear if they are stored indefinitely, but that is what Lucas was trying to get with his association with Gavin. And even if the police wanted to check for those records, they'd have to know that the texts existed once. A regular beat cop looks through a phone (assuming it survived being run over by a train), he's not going to be suspicious that there were erased texts. More likely, even if he is suspicious, the detective would tell him that it looks like a suicide so it's a suicide, let's not turn it into a murder.
28th Jan '16 10:49:31 PM dmcreif
Is there an issue? Send a Message
** It probably was a scheduling conflict. Story-wise, it didn't seem like there was much for Mendoza to do for the rest of the season. Underwood's antagonists were either foreign principals or party-insiders. Given how much we know of Mendoza, he doesn't appear to be a formidable opponent against Underwood were Underwood to win the primaries, so it might have been easier just to dispense with Mendoza.
to:
** It probably was a scheduling conflict. Story-wise, it didn't seem like there was much for Mendoza to do for the rest of the season. Underwood's Frank's antagonists were either foreign principals (like Petrov) or party-insiders. party-insiders (like Heather Dunbar). Given how much we know of Mendoza, he doesn't appear to be a formidable opponent against Underwood Frank if Frank were Underwood to win the primaries, so it might have been easier just to dispense with Mendoza.

Added DiffLines:
** It probably was a scheduling conflict. Story-wise, [[folder:What's Doug in it didn't seem like there was much for Mendoza to do for the rest for?]] * Doug does some of the season. Underwood's antagonists were either foreign principals exceptionally unimaginable deeds that Frank needs done, like the role he had in the entire Russo plot, or party-insiders. Given how much disposing of Rachel. However, there's something about the way Michael Kelly plays him, and the way Doug acts, it's like he carries a permanent death sentence with him that Frank is indefinitely postponing, yet Doug stays completely loyal to him instead of trying to consider the possibility to free himself from Frank, and maybe be a bit more outgoing like his brother Gary. But I don't recall there being many nice words to Doug from Frank's lips, despite different writers and directors throughout the show. Despite knowing almost nothing we know of Mendoza, he doesn't appear to be a formidable opponent against Underwood were Underwood to win enough that Doug isn't motivated by the primaries, so it might money he gets. So, I have been easier just to dispense with Mendoza.wonder, what stems Doug's undying loyalty to Frank? [[/folder]]
27th Jan '16 7:45:44 AM BanjoTCat
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** It probably was a scheduling conflict. Story-wise, it didn't seem like there was much for Mendoza to do for the rest of the season. Underwood's antagonists were either foreign principals or party-insiders. Given how much we know of Mendoza, he doesn't appear to be a formidable opponent against Underwood were Underwood to win the primaries, so it might have been easier just to dispense with Mendoza.
25th Jan '16 5:22:40 PM BanjoTCat
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** Rachel doesn't know everything, but she is the first thread to be pulled that would unravel the mystery of Russo's death. She was there at the beginning and she picked up details here and there in between. All it would take would be for her to reach out to a journalist, to let slip something that would pique somebody's curiosity, or got to the cops if she feels scared enough. Considering how scared she was much of the time, it would only take a little bit more desperation or courage for her to find somebody who could do something for her. Frank and his cohorts could head off anything she said, but it would definitely throw a wrench in anything Frank would try to do since now he would have to deal with being associated with a prostitute.
24th Jan '16 11:13:34 AM BanjoTCat
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
** If you looked up "Safe Candidate" in the dictionary, you'd see Walker's face. He is a moderate, a centrist even, who appeals to independents. After being in the minority for over a decade, the Democrats picked the most electable candidate possible, even if he isn't the most liberal. Superficially, he is easy on the eyes, poised, has a patrician voice, young but not too young, older but not too old, white but with an easily pronounceable last name. In terms of party politics, Walker lacks a distinct vision of his own, relying on insiders and experts to make his decisions, which makes him ideal with lobbyists and special interests. I doubt he won the election in a landslide, but it was probably by a safe margin.
24th Jan '16 10:56:30 AM BanjoTCat
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
* The Watershed Bill was an attempt to curry favor within the administration. If it worked, Underwood would raise his position as a valuable power player. If it failed, Russo would fall and Matthews would swoop in and go back to being governor. But the failure of the bill wasn't exactly necessary for Russo to fall anyway. Rachel simply seduced him, got him drunk, and humiliated him on the radio. Russo's campaign was fragile to begin with, so in any event, Underwood would get rid of Russo and become VP. The reason why he is so upset with Claire is because she undermined him when they were supposed to be partners in this whole endeavor.
2nd Jan '16 10:32:20 PM dmcreif
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
[[folder:The removal of Mendoza from the scene]] *This question is more meta than anything, but what was the exact reason why Hector Mendoza was written out of the show? Part of me thinks there were scheduling conflicts with his actor, but were there other reasons? [[/folder]] [[folder:Is Claire analogous to Lady Macbeth or not?]] * Is this a fair assessment to consider Claire the equivalent of Lady Macbeth? Part of me says no, because if I remember it right, Lady Macbeth held most of the power in their marriage. She was the one who pushed Macbeth to kill Duncan and rise to the throne. In the Underwood marriage, Frank and Claire are equals. Most of the time, Claire doesn't even need to push Frank, he is ambitious all on his own. [[/folder]]
2nd Jan '16 10:24:06 PM dmcreif
Is there an issue? Send a Message
Added DiffLines:
**Someone on IMDb suggested something interesting: America Works ''could'' work, depending on how Frank decides to implement it. If such a thing existed it sure would be best if it were used to revive industries we've lost or are losing to foreign trade. And that is not a knock against foreign trade, but there are a lot of things America could do better, quality wise, and there is a wealth of knowledge that's been lost in the real world to outsourcing overseas (Examples: There are very few steel mills, we lost textiles decades ago, we won't even let Americans answer phones for customer service at call centers, etc.). But on the flip side of that, and this isn't meant to demean those that are unemployed, how much we would notice a less than 10% job increase among our population? If that is the amount needed to reach total employment, presumably spread across countless industries and skill levels (even if skewed to some degree toward unskilled labor), would it change our current issues which still include stagnant wages, inflation, shrinking middle class, high personal debt, a housing market too inflated for most to buy into, increasing rent, etc.? Frank even proposes around $500 billion in funds to make it happen, which is more than we ever spent on the financial bailout in 2008. Amworks could be a "jobs-for-all" program or a program that includes jobs that require special skills and part of that job will train a work force in the technical skills needed that we currently have to fill with people out of the country. There are many possibilities so its certainly an interesting concept but its success is context specific, otherwise it's really just welfare if it can't be built upon.

Added DiffLines:
[[folder:America Works and pensions]] *This was noted by another IMDb user: but in Frank's speech where he outlines America Works, apparently pensions appear to be in the list of things on the chopping block. Is Frank seriously saying that people aren't entitled to the pensions they worked towards and contributed to over their (decades-long) careers? Money taken from their paychecks and set aside for their retirement, Frank's proposing to just take that away? How could that be a SERIOUS suggestion/plan? Even if Frank just meant the government old age pensions, that's still seriously messed up, especially for people with disabilities or handicaps, or people currently living off that pension - so his plan is to take 65-100 year-old peoples' pensions away and force them to work as Wal-Mart greeters until they die? What happens when they have a stroke/whatever on the job and they have to be hospitalized with their ZERO health insurance, since I remember Medicaid is also on the chopping block, and apparently Americans think universal healthcare is communist? [[/folder]]
This list shows the last 10 events of 145. Show all.