Search options (Page 2 of 50)

Again, I think what's happening here is that Grizzlor is talking about people that are not tuned into politics but will still be immensely important in November.  I've been watching the morning news that my wife has on (local NBC and the Today Show) and they're still covering this race like it's normal.  The only person who's talking about Trump's lunacy is Nikki Haley.  Whenever they show Trump talking, they find clips where he's talking normally and about something that sounds like a political stump speech.

That's why Nikki Haley is our friend, even if she's not who we want to be president.  She might be the only voice that reaches the *vast* majority of people who aren't plugged into everything.  I'm not sure we can count on the mainstream media to cover Trump like they *need* to be covering him.  As someone with a degree in journalism, that's disheartening.

I think we do need to be trying to look at this lens through someone who isn't plugged in to all of this.  Because those are the people who will decide the election.

Yeah, I think the mainstream media is also to blame.  When I watch clips on the Today show, they never reference Trump's gaffes unless its something like the NATO thing that completely blew up.  I think the media is trying to be whatever they consider to be "fair" and aren't directly reporting on it.  I don't know.  I wish they would.

But Nikki Haley is talking about it.  Joe Biden is talking about it.  Biden's surrogates are talking about it.  So hopefully it's reaching people that don't watch MSNBC or are active on political twitter or whatever. 

I'll reference this article again.  Even conservatives who hear Trump talk get sick/bored of him.  Biden needs to make sure as much of Trump's own words get to the average American.  That should be his goal, and Trump's own words will defeat him.  And I think, in the end, Americans will take the guy who looks old and speaks like he's old over the guy who is LITERALLY CRAZY.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … on/677119/

Again, I would like to point out that Grizzlor may be talking in general terms about what the average American understands about some of these things.  The average American doesn't watch MSNBC.  The average American doesn't know what the Lincoln Project is.  The average American probably doesn't have any idea the kinds of things that Trump says at rallies.  They might not know that Trump has continually confused Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley, because the average American might not really know who either of those people are.

I'll give you an example.  My wife and I don't talk about politics.  We never have.  Her family is conservative, but neither her nor her sister is openly political in any way.  We've been together nearly a decade, and we very rarely have ever talked about our political opinions or any political stories.  And one morning, I asked her if she knew about any of the Trump indictments and what they were about.  She had some guesses, and she eventually mentioned documents.  That's all she knew.  My wife is very intelligent and watches the morning news every morning (the local news and then the Today show).  She knew nothing about the criminal indictments of Donald Trump.  It's not that she is getting conservative talking points or she thinks its a scam or a witch hunt or whatever - she just doesn't know the details.

But since Biden is on TV a lot of days, she knows that Biden looks old and sounds old.  That's really all she knows.  And so my wife, a college graduate who watches the news every day, sees Biden looking old and knows nothing about Trump.

This is where the Biden campaign is going to have to get.  My wife, an average American, needs to know that Trump is on trial for hush money payments to a porn star he cheated on his wife with.  My wife needs to know that Trump doesn't support our European allies.  My wife needs to know that Trump was making fun of military service.  Not only that, my wife needs to know that Trump regularly gets people confused and goes on bizarre tangents.  My wife needs to know that Trump has promised mass deportations and to be a dictator on day one.

If they can reach my wife, I think Trump loses a ton of support.  We can't rely on the news to tell the story because my wife watches the news and she doesn't know.

I don't know what will happen with Georgia, but it's mind-blowing to me that it's taken this long to even get that case anywhere.  He's ON TAPE asking people to "find votes".  It's ridiculous and should be so open and shut.

So Russia is trying to put nukes in space.

Can we all get behind helping Ukraine now?

Here are some questions:

1. Do the Democrats really think that Trump is a real threat to democracy?  Or is that a ploy to get people to vote for them?
2. Is Trump a real threat to Democracy?  If he wins, Trump has shown signs that he wants to be a dictator.  But is the American system of government strong enough to push back on Trump?  Are there enough checks and balances to survive Trump for four more years?
3. Does Biden truly believe that he's the only one that can beat Trump?
4. Is Biden the only one who can beat Trump, or can any Democrat do it (up to and including Biden?)
5. Is Biden a failure if he only does one term?
6. Does Biden think he's a failure if he only does one term?
7. Can Kamala Harris beat Trump?
8. Will the black vote (particularly the female black vote) abandon Democrats if Kamala Harris isn't the nominee to replace Biden?
9. Who is the strongest Democrat to beat Trump?
10. Does any of this matter if Trump is convicted in any of his trials?

See, I can get my mind around this.  I don't think people that are against minimum wage don't necessarily want to make more money themselves.  I think it's more about people's individual ideas of "earning" money.  People don't want people to make $15 and not "earn" it (by whatever definition of "earn" they have in their heads).  A lot of time, people don't think that a counter guy at McDonalds should earn $15 because they think that's a job for someone in high school.  If you 're in high school, $7.25/hour is okay.  "If you're a grown man, you shouldn't need to have a job for someone in high school" they might think/say.

(NOTE - I DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE PEOPLE )

There's also the idea of freeloading that people tend to be against.  Even people on welfare / social security are against increases in these programs on the idea that people will steal from the system.  Even if it hurts themselves, they'd rather the system not be taken advantage of.

My mother got social security payments after my dad died.  I've talked to my mom about it, and she's against people getting free money to not work.  I've told her that our two choices are a) don't give it to anyone, even if they need it or b) give it to everyone, even if it means some people take advantage.  There's no other option.  That convinced her to be okay with it. 

So I can at least see the argument.

For supporting Russia...that's just bizarre.  There are World War II veterans that still don't trust the Japanese or the Germans.  That war has been over for decades.  I was alive during the Cold War, and even though I was a kid when it ended, I still think of Russia as the enemy in the back of my mind.  How are there people who grew up in the heat of the Cold War that are totally okay with Russia getting whatever they want.  It just seems bizarre that people could completely flip from that mindset.

The MAGA cult?  Sure.  The fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives and the "I've been a Republican my whole life" republicans are okay with just flat-out supporting Russia now?  Isn't that bizarre?

I think two things can be true.

1. The special investigator (who is a Republican) had no business talking in his report about Biden's memory
2. Biden is too old to be president

I'm not saying that's my opinion.  I will vote for Biden even if he's legally braindead in November.   Biden is the nominee, and an overwhelming number of Democrats in the first primaries have made it clear that they're willing (however reluctantly) to stick with him.  It won't be Michelle Obama or Raphael Warnock or Gavin Newsom.  It might be Kamala Harris but only if something tragic happens.  That's just a fact.

But that means that a feeble-looking Biden is going to be running for president.  And if there are any undecided voters left, whenever Biden speaks or slips up or appears confused or whatever...they're going to form their own opinion.  And unfortunately, that's an issue that simply wouldn't exist if the nominee were Obama or Warnock or Newsom. 

I think Biden has done a great job, and even if all the things that Republicans are thinking about him are true, his administration is doing a great job in the absence of a 50-year-old Biden.  But it does feel like Democrats are going into an extremely important gun battle with a half clip of bullets.  Or bringing a knife to a gun fight.  Whatever metaphor you want to use.

It sucks.  I think, like I thought in 2016, that a different candidate would blow Trump out of the water.  But we don't have time to bring in another candidate and get him/her up to speed.  The train left the station, and Biden is what we have.  And we have to hope that one very old candidate with possible mental degradation is better than the other very old candidate with possible mental degradation.

I wish that Biden had truly intended to serve one term and not seek re-election, and I wish that Harris chose not to run.  And I wish that the Democrats had a young, virile, sharp candidate who could run circles around Trump.  Trump must be defeated, and I wish that I felt better about the national view of our guy.  But it's too late to wish for something different.  If Biden is not the nominee, it's almost certainly because something horrible has happened.  And if that happens, it's up to Kamala Harris because if it's not Harris or Biden, it better be Michelle Obama or the black coalition is in jeopardy.

We just have to hope that a) all 2020 Biden voters are as enthusiastic as QuinnSlidr or b) enough 2020 Biden voters are willing to look past his age.  That's really our hope now.

Yeah, I don't have a problem with the Suicide Squad killing the Justice League.  As a separate project, it's a fun concept.  They're inherently bad guys so they shouldn't have any issue killing heroes.  They're brainwashed so you're not necessarily doing bad things.  It's a way to incorporate super heroics without figuring out how to do super heroics as the hero (every attempt at doing Superman has failed).  It's a cool concept.

But like ireactions said, you killed me!  And you showed enough of my adventures to prove that it's definitely me and not someone random.  It's just a weird concept to do.

And I get it.  The hope, after there were tons of Superman references in Arkham Knight, was that Rocksteady could finally figure out the Superman dilemma.  And I get that maybe that's still just not possible with our modern gaming.  You can make Superman look great - there are plenty of Unreal engines that show what it could look like.  But how do you make a gamer feel like Superman without weakening him or juicing up villains to the point where it just feels like any other video game?

And I can assume they didn't want to do another Batman game.  And since they'd already done tons of DLC for the Bat-Family, not wanting to do a game like that.  But it might've been fun for them to do that SuperMax concept that was going to be a movie all those years ago.  You use Green Arrow who's been arrested and thrown into a superhuman SuperMax and have him fight his way across this prison.  No superpowers - a similar fighting system to Batman - and a ton of fun cameos for villains and heroes.

It is crazy that the game was in development long enough for there to be two separate failed Suicide Squad movies (failing for two different reasons).  The concept of the game seemed fun, and I guess they delivered on the promise of the title.  It just seems like the game itself is a mess, and narratively, it just feels cheap.  Not only did they kill Batman, but they also undid the emotional ending of the last game with a cheap two line idea.  It's just bad.

And I guess one more thing.  The Arkham games would be terrifying if you were one of the villains.  He hides in the shadows and picks off people one by one.  Imagine if that was a boss battle.  It would be a treat to Arkham fans to have to figure out how to beat an advanced AI version of the player you've been all these years.  Instead, you fight a bunch of visions and then a Scarecrow toxin - induced giant version of Batman.  It's silly.

They did do something cool - early in the game, if you look across the city, Batman is constantly stalking you.  You look around and he's watching you.  If you shoot at him, he disappears.  That's cool.  Everything else is super lame, and that sucks.

It's just really bizarre to me.  When you play a game like that, you're spending dozens of hours as that character.  There are cutscenes that make the characters come to life.  You're there, making decisions with them, for such a long time.  And it's just a little crazy that they treated him this way.  No attempt to save.  No attempt to cure.  Just killed.

And it's just a little sad I guess because it's such a bummer of an ending for this character.  If Bruce snapped and went crazy, whatever.  Take him down.  That's basically what happened with Injustice, and we're all cool with that.  But Bruce (and the rest of the Justice League) are literally brainwashed by a villain.  They're victims, and from what I've seen, there's no attempt to save them.  Maybe the game specifically says that it's not reversable, but I haven't seen anything or read anything that says that.

And I get that villains are the protagonists so they're going to make different decisions than heroes would.  But, like you said, make it a separate universe.  Don't take a character we've spent hours with, inside their head, and end him so unceremoniously.  I'm probably never going to play this game, mostly because I don't have time for games (or a system to play it on), but it does bother me.  Probably more than it should (which would be none haha)

I don't play a ton of video games, but I love the Arkham games.  I've played all of them, which makes them essentially the only games I've finished in the last couple of decades.

Spoilers for Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League.  Like ending-spoiling spoilers.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So I haven't played these games, and it's unlikely that I will anytime soon.  But Suicide Squad is a giant mess.  Considering that it's Rocksteady, I had high hopes that it would be fun.  But their whole slate of games is weird now.

1. WB Games Montreal (which created the fairly solid Arkham Origins) created a game called Gotham Knights.  It takes place in a world where Batman is dead, but it's unrelated to the Arkham games.  Which is weird because the last Arkham game ended with Batman "dying".  This is an unrelated game.

2. Now they've released Suicide Squad, which has Batman coming out of retirement to just be Batman again.  It's a direct sequel to Arkham and makes numerous references to being related to Arkham.

Okay so that's fine I guess.  Batman has died in many universes and Rocksteady is making the Suicide Squad game, right? 

Well, it's a little disingenuous to just have Bruce back as Batman.  It would be like making a Nolan movie sequel where Bruce is just Batman again with no other explanation than "I mean I guess he missed being Batman so he came back".  But then not only does Batman come back with very little explanation, but they kill Batman.

And again, this is the same Batman that people have played dozens of hours as.  Unceremoniously killed.  While being brainwashed.  Just literally shot in the head.

And I mean, at the end of the day, I don't really care.  I'm not going to play this game.  But the Arkham games do mean something to me, and it's insane that they took their protagonist, brainwashed him, and then killed him.  After all Bruce did in those games, he dies a puppet villain.

To quote the Angry Video Game Nerd....."what were they thinking???"

Apparently the game is also terrible.  But I'm just blown away with that decision making.  They also introduce the concept of a multiverse, but again, there are tons of references to this being the same universe as Arkham.  It does feature Brainiac so maybe the Justice Leaguers that you kill are clones.  Or maybe this is an identical universe to Arkham but not Arkham.  But man, what a terrible thing to do IMO.

Polling suggests that the conviction matters.  A large section of republicans claim that they couldn't vote for Trump if he's convicted of any of the charges (which would presumably mean the New York one as well).  So the trials themselves matters, especially since a lot of people aren't paying any attention to the charges.

Biden's been pretty good about the border stuff in recent weeks, and the Republicans are saying all the quiet stuff out loud.  I could see sentiment start to change if this keeps up.  Biden has promised to shut down the border, and House Republicans might put it all on hold.  And they're admitting that they don't want to fix the problem.

I still blame Hillary Clinton for 2016 quite a bit.  I've softened on her a lot, but I think if Biden had wanted to run in 2016 and she'd "allowed" it to happen, that Biden could've crushed Trump in 2016.  Even now, he doesn't have the unfavorables that she had.  She was a uniquely bad candidate to run against Trump at the time she ran against him.  If it had been a younger Biden coming off a mostly-successful Obama administration, I think Biden would've done much better in the Rust Belt.

I hope we get an open primary in 2028, and I hope there are some new, younger candidates that answer the call.

Yeah, I agree with this.  But I suspect there will be no debates at all.  And unless the mainstream media starts covering the crazy stuff from Trump's speeches, I don't know if most people will see it.

And Haley keeps going on Trump news outlets and keeps hammering him on his demeanor, his electability, and his tirades.  She's finally started throwing real punches, and she needs to stay in the race as long as possible.  She got a huge influx of money when Trump threatened her donors, and the longer she keeps attacking him (and he keeps attacking her), the more votes Trump will shed.  She has less than zero chance of winning the nomination, but she can absolutely damage Trump's road to the White House.

I think that's the main problem.  If the Democrats had another Obama, I think this election would basically already be over.  But they don't.

Interestingly enough, they probably could've made this election a slam dunk if they wanted.  Biden made reference early on to only wanting to be a bridge to the next generation of Democrats.  Essentially that he'd be a one-term president and let someone else take over.  The problem was 1) Biden didn't seem to actually mean that / want that (or he changed his mind) and 2) he needed Kamala Harris as a VP to consolidate his coalition.

Which leads to 3) Kamala Harris just isn't very beloved across the board.  I don't have any problem with her at all, but she usually polls worse than Biden.  Republicans use her as ammunition (Haley did it again last night) to scare each other into avoiding a second Biden term ("you'll get President Harris").  Of course, a lot of that could be racist and/or sexist, but it doesn't matter.  I don't think Democrats would be any more enthusiastic to vote for Harris over Biden, and I don't know if she would have a better chance of beating Trump than Biden does.

And if Biden only did one term, would the party have an open primary?  Or would they rally around Harris anyway?  Would having an open primary be a slap in the face to the people that voted for Biden because Harris was on the ticket?  If the first female vice president was unceremoniously replaced by some white dude on the ticket after serving only one term, would that be the real progress that America was hoping for?

And then there are the questions.  Would Biden have still won if he'd pick someone like Amy Klobuchar as his VP instead of Harris?  Would Mayor Pete be more of an heir apparent if he weren't gay?  How would things have changed if Michelle Obama legitimately wanted to be president?

And the biggest one: why didn't the Democrats spend the last three years tirelessly working to find the next Obama?  And, maybe the scarier question, what if they did and just couldn't find anyone?  I think there's a world in which Harris could realistically retire as a one-term vice president and it wouldn't lose the next person any votes.  She and Joe ride into the sunset together having defeated Trump, and Democrats rally around the next person that everyone is on board with.

***********

I know that didn't answer your question.  I'm certainly not enthusiastic about Biden, but I'm ready to vote for him.  But I'll admit I would be equally as excited to vote for Whitmer or Warnock or Newsom or Mayor Pete or Harris.

Yeah, they're also apparently bringing in the actor that played Bullseye, which means it might be a direct continuation of season 3 as opposed to the more vague plan they seemed to have before.

I'm glad the Netflix shows are canon, but I'll be intrigued to see what else they'll bring back.  Of the Netflix shows, I'd like to see more of Colleen Wing, and I think a Heroes for Hire project could be fun.  Even if it's a one shot movie like Werewolf by Night or the Guardians' Holiday event.

I guess we'll see.  I'm just saying that if the Democrats think this is as important of an election as they say, then they can't take anything for granted or assume anything.  Every issue needs to be attacked with the idea of getting as many votes as possible.  Clinton lost in 2016 because she assumed that she didn't need to campaign in certain places because she assumed the Obama coalition would stay with the Democrats.  And that coalition fell apart.

Biden can't make that same mistake.  He needs to aggressively court as many votes as possible, pivoting wherever he needs to.  Whatever he does, it won't be any less humane or any more totalitarian than what you'd get under Trump.

Win in 2024.  Worry about literally anything else after that.

I mean I'm in Texas.  I don't see any problems here.  I don't feel invaded.

The problem is that it doesn't matter whether it's a real issue or not.  It's an issue for Biden in the general election.  He can ignore it, write off people who think its an issue, and maybe he can still win.  Or he can do something about it and maybe win back some voters.  I'm not looking to take any chances and since 80% of Americans think that Biden is to the left of them on immigration, I think it's reasonable for him to move to the right.

He could also divert funds to the Border Patrol.  He could make a big deal about the parts of the wall he's forced to make.  There's a ton of space between where Biden is now and where Abbott is that he could move to the right on.  The choice isn't "razor wire and kids in cages" or "do nothing."  There's a lot he can do that wouldn't be harmful or inhumane to migrants.

And if he wants voters who are generally fine with Biden as long as the border gets fixed, then isn't it worth it to get those voters?

You could argue that she's the biggest star on the show.  Budget might restrict their abilities to fully take care of every one of her demands, but I'm sure they understand that.  The Orville is an ensemble cast and could survive it even if she didn't want to come back (for whatever they're able to pay her or however they want to work), but I think her presence would be missed, maybe more than anyone but Ed.

Well, I guess I don't know.  The way Palicki talked, it didn't seem like she was under contract anymore or thought the show would continue.  The article implied she wouldn't be back, but I don't know if that's necessarily true.  I'm sure she's upset, but work is work.  And as long as they don't make her sign something that holds her hostage, I think she'd be willing to come back.

No, you didn't misinterpret.  I'm just saying that I assume she'd come back if the contract makes it worth her time.  I hope she comes back - she's a good character and fairly vital to Ed's story.

I know Palicki spoke negatively about her experience, but I assume if they pay her properly for her time (including any time she's not working), I assume she would come back.  She hasn't really worked much since the Orville ended (which may be her choice), but even if it was some sort of smaller role, I don't think she'd just not come back.  At least, that's not what I got from her interview with Michael Rosenbaum.

I think the 2024 election will come down to a few things:

(as shorthand, I'm going to refer to anyone that's actually a toss-up voter as "non-MAGA".  Obviously MAGA will vote for Trump no matter what and Biden will get the hardcore Democrats)

1. The economy.  The economy is starting to worry Trump because he's talking about it a lot.  He's recently admitted that Biden has been drilling a ton, has admitted the stock market is doing really well, and has admitted that gas prices are down.  Of course, in typical Trump fashion, he's claiming that Biden is just drilling for the election and that drilling and gas prices are going to go back to low and high, respectively, once Biden has been re-elected.  He also claims that he's responsible for the stock market being high since he's winning in the polls.

So what will non-MAGA think of any of that?  Will they believe Trump's theories or trust how the economy "feels"?  Will they give Biden credit for a strong 2024 economy, or will they still blame him too much for the post-Covid economy?  Trump is obviously positioning any Biden success as Trump success, but will that work with people that might not love Trump?

Obviously, if the economy tanks (or even just doesn't keep getting better), Biden is going to have a hard time.

2. The Border.  The other thing that Biden polls poorly at (at the moment).  But Biden has been speaking about it a lot, and the new Republican conspiracy theory is that Biden wants the House to not pass the border deal so that he can claim it's the Republicans' fault.  I don't know what non-MAGA is going to make of that.  Will they simply go by statistics (meaning even if Republicans pass legislation, Biden gets credit?) or will they understand the issue deep enough to know the details?

3. The Trials.  This is actually #1 in terms of things that will impact the election, I think, but I'm putting it here because I think it's a less reliable factor since we don't know if any of these trials will happen in time for it to matter.  I think there's a 0.0% chance that the Florida case happens before the election (if at all, if Cannon has her way), and it's the same chance that Georgia gets started before the election.  That leaves New York (which I think voters care less about) and the big one in DC.  DC is the only one that I think has a chance to move the election (polls have said that if Trump is guilty of any of the crimes he's been indicted for, he could lose as much as 1/3 of his support, but I can't imagine they mean New York).

So in DC, Trump is arguing about immunity.  And he's talking about immunity a ton.  For whatever reason, the appeals court hasn't ruled yet.  The longer they wait, the longer the appeal to the Supreme Court.  And if the Supreme Court takes the case, the delay could be massive.  Best case for people wanting the trial to be complete before the election (win or lose) is for the appeals court to rule against Trump and for the Supreme Court to deny taking the case.  If that happens, we should probably have a trial during the summer or earlier.

If Trump is convicted, polling strongly suggests that Trump has no shot.  He'd essentially lose half of his non-MAGA support.  Would voters change their mind (making more or less of them not vote for him) by the time the election comes?  Absolutely.  But I just can't believe enough Americans are willing to vote for a convicted felon for Trump to win.

4. Trump and Biden gaffes.  They're both older, and they're both prone to speaking like older men.  Biden's is more about looking old and frail.  Trump's is more about being confused about people or places or time periods or history.  We'll have to see if Trump's recent gaffes affect him in polls, but I'm assuming that enough people aren't paying attention yet (and the media isn't really covering the gaffes).

I agree that perception still matters, but will Americans be more likely to vote for frail or crazy?

5. The wars.  Ukraine, Gaza, and the Houthis will be a big part of the election.  Trump can claim that he was strong enough that no one was willing to go to war while he was president.  Biden can claim that Trump was buddies with dictators and despots who were too busy getting everything they wanted to go to war.  I do think Putin is trying to cause as much trouble as he can because it helps Trump.  Will Americans believe that?  Will pro-Palestine democrats cause issues for Biden if Gaza isn't resolved by the election?

6. Biden's wins.  Will non-MAGA give credit to Biden for all the things that Biden was able to do?  The infrastructure bill is starting to show real progress that Americans are going to notice.  Are they going to know that Biden provided that progress?

7. Social issues / "Woke" - I think any discussion of this hurts Biden.  Luckily, it seems like DeSantis was going to run his entire campaign on this stuff, and he didn't do very well.  So maybe Trump won't bring it up as much either.

I think most of these are positive for Biden.  The only question is whether non-MAGA will consider them positives.  Will they give him credit for a strong economy?  Will they trust that he's working on the border?  Will they abandon Trump based on the trials?  Will they pay attention to the craziness Trump talks about?  Will they blame Biden for wars abroad?  Will they give Biden credit for what he accomplished?  And have they moved beyond the "woke" stuff?  I think they need to say "no" to most of these for Trump to win, but I don't know if that's horribly unlikely.

I agree that DeSantis doesn't need to be anywhere near the White House, but his exit from the race this early is not excellent news (at least not from my vantage point).  About a year ago, I was talking to my aunt, and I told her that the best bet for a Biden re-election was a war between DeSantis and Trump.  Because it would be mutually assured destruction.  If Trump won, he'd turn off enough DeSantis voters to make a difference.  If DeSantis won, Trump would go nuclear and destroy the party.  Win-win.

As I said, there are already a lot of DeSantis people on Twitter saying that they're never going to vote for Trump.  That Trump had already attacked DeSantis enough.  Oddly enough, a lot of DeSantis folks are anti-vaxxers that are mad at Trump for his handling of Covid and his kind treatment of Fauci.  They blame Trump for the vaccine and for the shutdowns, and that's a bridge too far for him.  Many are saying they'll vote Republican down ballot but leave the presidential race blank.  Or vote RFK Jr.

That would obviously help, but I was hoping for a longer battle between them.  And I didn't think DeSantis would cave so fast and endorse.  I assume he's looking for a cabinet position since his political career in Florida might be over.  Or a Senate run could be dependent on Trump's support in Florida, where Trump is more popular than he is.

I just think it was too early.  The Never Trump faction of the DeSantis camp has plenty of time to turn around and support Trump.  The insults Trump threw at DeSantis will be ten months old on election day, and I'm sure DeSantis will do what he can to convince his voters to vote for Trump.

Our only hope is that Nikki Haley can stay in the race long enough to convince enough Republicans to not stick with Trump.  She's attacking him on his mental decline, which is probably Trump's weakest point among his own base.  But she needs to stay in the race long enough to be attacking him long enough for people to hear her.  If she drops out after New Hampshire or South Carolina and endorses him, our last chance to have a Republican convince Republicans not to vote for Trump will be over.

Actuarial data suggests that Trump will live into his 90s.  He has world class healthcare, and his father lived to be 93.  I would think, barring something unexpected happening, he would live another dozen plus years.

Now, the dude only eats McDonalds and never seems to do any actual activity other than golfing. But data as recent as 2023 suggests Trump isn't in any danger of dying of natural causes for a while, and I'm sure it took his diet and his actual weight (not the ridiculous number he declares) into account.

Republicans do both, though.  I would assume most of the people arrested on January 6 probably didn't love Donald Trump before 2015.  Now they're willing to go to jail for him?  To die for him?

The problem is that Republicans base everything on winning.  That's why they have no platform, and that's why they struggle to get anything done when they get in office.  They're so concerned with winning that they don't even know what to do when they get there.  If you have no platform, then the actual candidate is irrelevant.  You just vote for the person with the R by their name.  What do they stand for?  It doesn't matter.

A lot of people are saying this, but I assume *most* of those people that voted for any of the other candidates will coalesce behind Trump.  Not all because some of them are already saying that they'd vote for Biden if Haley doesn't win, but those people might've already said in polls that they'd vote for Biden over Trump.  I don't know if it's fair to say that Trump only has half the Iowa vote because someone would rather vote for DeSantis or Haley or Ramaswamy.  It matters if they'd rather vote for Trump or Biden.

But it does show that a large swath of people are looking for an alternative.  I'm hoping that Haley can win in New Hampshire, perhaps with a large percentage of the Christie vote.  And maybe if Trump can be shown to bleed, he can be beaten.  I just don't know.

The problem with an older group of Sliders is that Quinn's actions would be so much more reckless.  Even if Arturo, Wade, and/or Rembrandt were all willing to come along, Rembrandt and Arturo are senior citizens.  It's one thing to have one older gentleman, but Rembrandt was in his prime.  Wade was young and adventurous.

I worry about versions of Arturo, Wade, and Rembrandt that would have any interest in sliding.  Maybe Arturo is in for "one last adventure" which might imply that he's ready to die.  Same, maybe, with Rembrandt.  Wade is either still single in her 50s and still pining for Quinn, or maybe she's divorced/widowed allowing for another chance with him.

In any case, these are retirement age (or close) adults who are choosing to leave their lives behind (or, worse, getting torn away from lives they don't want to leave behind.

Sure, you can make the story whatever you want, and it doesn't have to be sad.  Plenty of people are hungry for adventure later in life, and plenty of people are happy with lives where they can start over at the drop of a hat.  You could easily write that.

But, I don't know, I think I'd rather all/most of the sliders be home and happy in retirement, ready to leave sliding behind.

I absolutely respect that too.  And, honestly, we probably need more shows willing to cast older actors and treat them like they treat younger actors.  And I think a cerebral Sliders sequel series that would accommodate older actors could be great.  Like Tracy said in the DragonCon panel about a possible Season 4 budget slash...it could make for a more interesting story if you're bound by something out of your control.

At the same time, I don't want a reality where the core four have been sliding for 30 years.  I don't want a nearly-80-year-old professor Arturo getting thrown out of a vortex.  It just feels sad.  That's why any story I consider these guys are home and happy and retired.  Leave the sliding to the kids.