American Politics: Discuss and Debate (Page 17 of 59)

The story of these MAGA kids is just mind-blowing on so many levels.

First, it shows us that the press doesn't care about facts. They're like fiction writers for old scifi magazines, creating stories around compelling pictures that have been set before them.

Second, it shows how easily the masses are manipulated by the press. The fact that grown adults, many of whom are politician or employed by news outlets, were calling for doxxing or violence against these kids was nothing short of insane. Even if the kids were guilty of saying mean things (which we know they're not), would that justify calling for violence against kids?

Third, it shows that even with raw, simple facts presented to them, completely disproving their stories, some people will hold onto the anger and hatred, because it's what fuels the mob and they need more of it. Now, apparently (in some eyes), it's still okay to call for violence against these kids, because a MAGA hat means that you are harassing people and it's okay to punch anyone wearing those hats.

Fourth, it shows that when presented with actual footage of teens harassing an elderly person, and even trying to smack the man's sign out of his hand, the mob will not show outrage if they don't agree with the elderly person's politics.
https://youtu.be/3Q23xB6Ghm0

This means, it's not any moral high ground that these people stand on. Nothing they believe in, aside from "You are my enemy, and you must suffer." Otherwise, these actions would have been called out from either side.

This is how the mob works. This is why fake news is dangerous. This is why social media is toxic. All of this existed before, of course. However, the ease with which lives can be (and are) destroyed for no reason is astonishing.

This is a clear and simple example of how this all works, but it's the norm for journalism and the mob these days. And both sides have to be called out on this one, because there were many right-wingers who were just as willing to throw these kids to the wolves without investigating the whole story. They were trying to appease the mob as well, but for other reasons. They wanted to gain points by showing how cool they were with calling out the bad guys in their own party. And while I agree with holding your own party accountable when it's called for, the willingness to do so--TO KIDS-- without information was pathetic.

The whole thing makes me sick. It's just disgusting. And while I could hope that it'd be a wake-up call for some, and a lesson to look into facts and evidence a little bit more, I'd be joking if I said that I actually believe that anything productive will come from this.

I was just reading more of the comments from verified Twitter users, whose comments Twitter refuses to take down, despite their threatening nature. It makes me so mad. This isn't one story, it's our culture now. Those people refuse to acknowledge that the kids were the wronged party, simply because people don't like their hats. Twitter will delete completely non threatening posts from conservatives and even ban the users, but won't even delete threats toward conservative *children*.

These kids are being called white supremacists. They're being compared to the Hitler Youth. They're having their names and faces plastered all over sites that want more info on them, and what's their crime? Wearing a stupid hat to the March for Life! A rally designed to celebrate how sacred every human life is.

We need to be able to talk to those who disagree with us. We need to understand that most people are good and want what they genuinely believe to be the best thing for everyone. This need to demonize every man, woman or child who dares to disagree with you (figurative you, not specifically anyone here) will not lead us anywhere good.

All that said, I do fully believe that there are people in politics, and people in the media who are genuinely bad people. Who want bad things, for selfish reasons. They are dangerous and they're driving a lot of this hatred that we see.

When you pay money to attend a school that allows and even celebrates students wearing blackface to intimidate minority students from other schools, you're going to develop that reputation.

So your supposition is that adults can be programmed by the media, but kids can't be programmed by their schools?

Look, I'm inclined to think anyone who wears a MAGA hat and goes to that school is awful, Season 3 awful. But we can't determine whether or not Sandmann harassed Phillips on January 18 at the Lincoln Memorial based on headwear, academic enrollment and events that didn't take place on January 18 at the Lincoln Memorial.

Sandmann could be a racist and bully who burned down my house and stole my car and stabbed my grandmother and drank my last ginger ale, but he could be all of those things while still committing no acts of harassment on that Friday in Washington. And I actually do think Sandmann drank my last ginger ale. Someone did.

If you can contradict Informant's assertions based on the footage, please do; if not, then I don't really see what grounds you (or I) have for disagreement.

Informant, I apologize. It was a reaction. It wasn't a position. "OF COURSE Informant would take the side of whoever was white, he always sides with cops when any cop shoots a black guy. Oh. Facts are on his side in this one. Oh, thank GOD I didn't weigh in or I'd never hear the end of it." (Looks like I will anyway.)

I thought it was funny to point out my immediate thought process, a process which I withheld from public consumption until afterwards. I wouldn't present my immediate reactions as actual opinions because such reactions aren't always informed or correct. I thought it was self-mocking. Instead, I have hurt your feelings. I'm sorry. I don't think you're a racist. I don't really know what I think of you, I find you something of a wildcard.

You're the guy who recognizes Bryan Singer as a sexual assaulter but doesn't see Donald Trump as the same. You said Henry Cavill couldn't play Superman because he was American; now you find Cavill's performance excellent. I'm never sure about anything with you and my mental image of you is often contradicted by actual reality.

I feel like there might be one key incident to explain you to my personal satisfaction, but I've never figured it out – your reaction to the character of God on SUPERNATURAL in "Don't Call Me Shurley." You asserted that God in this episode was merely pretending to be depressed to spur other characters to action. The episode, however, is quite clear that God is being entirely candid about his exhaustion and exasperation and subsequent episodes reinforce this.

You had a view of God; the onscreen depiction contradicted your view, so you declared God to be lying in order to match your personal framework for the character. It says something, I'm just not sure what and may spend the rest of eternity contemplating what your deal is based on this anecdote. Regardless, I certainly respect your analysis, writing and thought processes even if I often find the end results ones that I reject.

And regarding this matter in general: at the outset, my instinctive response was to think Nick Sandmann a bully based on the images, screenshots and articles.  But I didn't say what I thought because I don't trust my reactions to screen captures -- not after a deeply unpleasant incident with Kari Wuhrer.

Back in 1998, before Season 4 had aired, I raged about Wuhrer's inability to hold a rifle convincingly and posted a mocking screenshot of her ineptitude on her fan site, screeching about how she clearly didn't take her profession seriously and didn't care about the show and was part of the all-out assault on SLIDERS' values, storytelling, legacy, platform and cast.

Wuhrer responded and apologized (yes, really) but noted that as an actress, she depended on the on-set weapons handler to show her how to handle guns for that scene; she couldn't simply summon that knowledge out of thin air. She also said she'd been working with the new writers on making Maggie's character more likable and would be grateful if SLIDERS fans gave her a chance to change our minds. (Actually, thinking back, her agent may have been typing all this.)

During Season 4, fans were livid over Jerry's hungover performances and screencapped frames where he looked sleepy -- except some of these supposedly dead-eyed images were sometimes taken from episodes where he was actually pretty good (that week) but blinking at an opportune moment for a mocking still.

In a former iteration of this forum, a poster who went by "breederbutter" called Cleavant "the racial hire" and a terrible actor who should never have gotten top billing and selected a Season 4 clip to indicate Cleavant's bad acting -- a clip where Cleavant's reaction to a squib for a gunfight was slightly muted. It's a selective shot that doesn't reflect Cleavant's skills at all.

And in this recent situation, we have people reading a lot into Sandmann's facial expression in a select frame that may or may not reflect the subject's inner thinking or intentions. Sandmann has posted an explanation (which I skimmed and which others have found credible with the full footage).

My opinion? I don't have one -- I shouldn't be offering any opinion until I have an hour and 46 minutes to watch the footage and I'm not sure I want that to be my job. If Informant's watched the footage in full and thinks Sandmann's personal account is reasonable and correct, then I'm going to defer to him on this one. If pilight wants to watch the footage and debunk Sandmann's account, please do, but I am getting the sense from the various mea culpas that history will be on Informant's side this time.

I still can't find the will to watch the footage, but TF made me think of this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YClAMYTEuZ0

Apology accepted. You just have to understand that this is the battle that we have to fight every day. There's this narrative that the right-wingers are the bad guys because they're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Even now, we have people saying that those kids deserved to be harassed and threatened because their hats are the same as white hoods, or the fact that they were at the March for Life makes them Nazis, or whatever. (and again, this is why the "punch a Nazi" movement sounds great on paper, but is actually a serious, dangerous thing. We're not actually talking about real Nazis 99% of the time)

Even on this board, it's been implied that I'm all of those things, and it's a hurdle that needs to be overcome if the conversations that need to take place can take place. The truth is, there are very few actual white supremacists, and none of them are embraced by the masses on either side. The need to put that label on people (or calling them sexist, homophobic, etc) is a way of shutting down the conversation without having to come up with an actual viewpoint.

I get that you probably don't believe that I'm a Nazi, but there are still those thoughts that cross your mind, like the thing with cops shooting black kids. I don't always support the cops, because sometimes the cops are wrong. However, I look at each case as its own thing, and I make my judgments accordingly. As with the MAGA kids, the narrative in the press is rarely the whole truth, or even any version of the truth. We just happened to have a 2 hour video that showed the true story this time, and it was undeniable at that point. But there are countless stories where the answers aren't as easy, and when it comes down to documents, various recordings, testimonies, etc, peoples' eyes glaze over and they usually stick to whatever the news tells them to believe.

Hell, I have a hard time getting anyone to tell me what they think "Russian collusion" actually means, but they sure as hell know that Trump needs to be impeached for it, and they'll punch any Nazi that says otherwise.

If I seem super defensive about this, it's because this is the fight that needs to be fought. We need people to listen to what others are saying, instead of projecting images onto the opposition. We need to have conversations that make us ask questions about what we believe, instead of just taking the word of whatever talking head we saw on the news. I forget who it was that said it, but someone once said that if you can't make the best argument against what you believe, you can't really know what you believe.

If I'm a wildcard, it's because I just want the information. I won't believe a story unless I see solid evidence for it. I have no loyalty to Trump or any other politician, or pundit, or website. Even if I don't have all of the evidence and I form an opinion based on my gut, I have to be willing to accept when I'm wrong (and I was wrong about Cavill).

One of my favorite movies is Signs. no matter how many times I watch it, I always see something new and interesting in the movie. But, while most people will tell you that the movie is about an alien invasion, I would argue that the movie is about demons. In another Shyamalan movie, The Happening, it's explained that when something happens, people will come up with theories and they will tell you that they know what's happening, but the truth is that there's often a huge difference between what you're told and what's real. Sometimes people don't know what's really going on, and they make up easy answers to comfort themselves.
With Signs, we're told what's happening on the news and with books that suggest that it's an alien invasion. But does that mean that we *know* what's really happening? We don't actually see a space ship. We don't actually see aliens coming down from space and telling us what they want. What we see are people, grasping for answers in the only way they know how. but ultimately, the movie is about a minister who is having a crisis of faith, and most of the symbolism of the movie is based around that theme (water is a form of purification, often used in baptism, for example).

We could apply this to Supernatural and God/Chuck as well. We're always told that he is a deadbeat that abandoned everyone, but we see him show up when he is needed, and we've seen him sitting in the back of the room, watching the Supernatural story unfold on stage when they did the musical episode. He wrote every story that Sam and Dean were featured in, so he clearly didn't abandon the world, as we have been told over and over again by different characters. He just didn't always do what they wanted him to do. Their lack of faith in him comes from the fact that they didn't get their way. (I'd have to rewatch the specific episode that you mentioned before I could comment on that, so I'll just leave this as a vague discussion of the character overall)

This is basically how I watch the news these days. There's the story that I'm being told, and then there's the story that's not being told. A lot of the time, the details that aren't being reported will change the entire story, and they're being left out because they don't fit the narrative that the media or the politicians want to create.

If I'm a wildcard (and I've never considered myself to be one), I think it's because everyone should be, to some degree. We should consider all of the facts available and form our opinions accordingly. We should discuss all of the ideas and angles, and see what makes the most sense. We'll still disagree, because people have different views on core subjects, but we should at least work to understand the other side as much as possible. To be able to argue for the other team in a debate (which I've actually done online, when people have failed to make the best argument against me. It was fun.)

The MAGA hat story tells us a lot. It tells us that people are willing to believe what's easy. It tells us that people on both sides were willing to condemn people (children, no less) based on what Twitter told them to believe. For some, it was because they were the enemy and it's always a good idea to destroy the enemy, and for those on the right, it was because they wanted to earn points by showing how willing they were to condemn people on their own side. All of these people just wanted points in whatever stupid game we're playing in this world.
What they all failed to do was look for facts. Gather information. The news channels that covered the story didn't seek out all angles before they ran with the story, they went with it because it was the right image for the story that they were going to tell anyway. Nobody who rushed to join the mob cared about what really happened, or the real lives that were being impacted by them.

And this is just one clear example, but it's the same thing that happens every single day. People believe what they want to believe, whether the facts support the story or not. People want to please the mob and collect their points, like Bryce Dallas Howard in that Black Mirror episode, but much uglier.

Sorry that I'm rambling. I know that you didn't rush to judge, and kudos for that. But this story just highlights a much larger problem in our society. It's something that I've been trying to point out for a long time.

Funny thing, I actually thought that when I read it   You never cease to amaze.

Congratulations!

And I'd like to also congratulate you all for being the only people on opposite sides of this debate (in the world) to acknowledge your own faults and the faults of the side you are on.  This whole government shutdown is full of lauded villains, and as soon as I find a hero, I'll let everyone know.

This might have fit in better with the Arrowverse thread, but it's political in nature. Since the Season 2 finale, SUPERGIRL has raised a question it hasn't been able to answer: where is Jeremiah Danvers? Where the hell has Dean Cain been?

His character was introduced as Kara's foster father in the pilot, thought dead in the present day, revealed to be alive in Season 2, exposed as being in league with Cadmus, an anti-alien terrorist group, for reasons unknown, aside from a hint that Lillian Luthor was building something for him in exchange for his help.

Jeremiah didn't appear in the Season 2 finale when the Cadmus arc was resolved and a defeated Lillian Luthor said that she didn't know where he was. Cain never returned to SUPERGIRL. Seasons 3 - 4 have acknowledged Jeremiah's existence without indicating his whereabouts and neither production nor Dean Cain have publically addressed his absence.

Why? I've heard that it's because during Season 2, Cain publically supported Trump in the election. And even though he was contracted as a guest star, production decided not to have him on set again after Season 2's fifteenth episode and cut all ties with him. They didn't want Cain associated with the SUPERGIRL brand, a brand that would later take a hit worse than anything Cain might have inflicted when showrunner Andrew Kreisberg was investigated for sexual harassment and fired off all his shows.

I don't know how I feel about it.

Short response:

I think you do know how you feel about it, in your gut.

If his only offense was what he believes, and he lost his job because he voted for the wrong guy, do you think that's justified? Is it forward-thinking? Is it an example of tolerance? Is it the direction that you want the world to move in, going forward?

Muuuuuuch longer response (read this one after taking a few moments to consider the short response):

Look... Supergirl is a far left show, run by far left people, starring far left people. Not liberals. Liberals have their opinions on things, but can be reasoned with. I don't agree with liberals, but I can usually get where they're coming from. The far left is something else entirely, and it's the brand of politics that Hollywood is based on. It's the reason why so many young conservatives remain in the closet about their political opinions. In Hollywood, you can be a child molester and receive an Academy Award, complete with standing ovation, but if you're an outspoken conservative, they will do everything in their power to destroy you. The far left is not about tolerance. It's not about inclusivity. It's about being what they want you to be, or being nothing. They will support an Antifa member smacking someone in the head with a bike chain, as long as that person voted for the other guy.

It's a toxic mentality, which is currently controlling the narrative in the media. It's the news. It's what's in primetime. It's late night talk shows. Again, I refer you back to the "punch a Nazi" line, which was featured in the crossover last year, and has been repeated over and over again in reference to children who were wearing the wrong hat.

The toxic left is as ugly as the crazy extreme right. The difference is, the crazy right isn't mainstream. The crazy right isn't running every show on TV, including the news.

There was a story a few years ago, when True Blood was on the air. I didn't watch the show, but I followed this news story and the discussion around it, because it was interesting. Basically, they wanted to have a character who had been in a hetero relationship up until this point enter into a homosexual relationship, complete with the show's typical sex scenes. The actor who played this character, Luke Grimes, said that he was uncomfortable with performing those scenes. He didn't object to others performing those scenes, he just didn't want to do them himself. This led to him leaving the show and the role being recast. You'd think this would be the end of the story and no big deal. Creative differences, or whatever. Happens all the time.
Except, people from the show (actors and I believe producers as well) started talking to the press about Grimes, and calling him homophobic for not wanting to perform those scenes. In the fandom, people were declaring him a bigot and a homophobe, and were saying that it's not an actor's job to say no. It's an actor's job to perform what's in the script. And there was remarkably little said in support of his decision.
To be clear, this was not the original character description, or what he signed on to play. It was a change that they discussed with him and he decided not to go through with. He did not slam the show. He did not use any slurs. He decided that he was personally uncomfortable performing gay sex scenes, for his own personal reasons. Could be religion, or it could be that he was horribly raped by a man as a child. I don't know. I don't care. It's his personal boundary, and if he just decided that he didn't want to spend 12 hours a day simulating sex with a dude, I think that's his call. All actors should draw that line for themselves, because things turn bad when they don't. Doesn't have to be the same line, but there should be a line of some sort. Some actors could turn down roles that portray conservatives in a positive light, and I think that's their right. They should not be shamed in the press by the production, simply for stepping back.

The problem was, his personal boundary wasn't on-message. His personal boundary, which he set for himself and nobody else, was problematic. In other words, he should shut up and do what he's told. This was a few years ago, and things weren't nearly as publicly insane as they are now, but it shows that Hollywood has been this way for a long, long time. If you aren't a part of the solution, you're a part of the problem. And yet, again, child molesters aren't always considered part of the problem.

Hollywood is cancer. I love the craft of movie making, and I think that it can produce truly beautiful things. But that industry is just cancer.

In regards to Dean Cain, I think they probably didn't want him there. But there's also a good chance that the environment wasn't to his liking either. He's a good guy, and I don't think that he would attack someone for what they believe. If he did, I'm sure that we'd know about it by now. I'm sure that he's not losing sleep over Supergirl. He is always working, and most of his projects are outside of the normal Hollywood environment. I'm sure he's doing just fine.

The thing to keep in mind is, the wokeness is an act. It's marketing, both for the entertainment industry and for politicians. Usually, it's a way of breaking up the audience into separate herds that can be easily wrangled. That's why you'll see comments about how gay people should vote, or black people should vote, when neither of those descriptors has anything to do with someone's thinking or beliefs.

So wokeness isn't a moral high ground. It's a club. One step out of line and you lose your membership.

I cannot stress enough in the name of the Professor's slide-rule, Rembrandt's AIDS ribbons and Jerry O'Connell's damaged liver that the views in any one post in this thread do not reflect those of Sliders.TV as a whole.

True. I take full responsibility for any post that suggests that a fully formed and functioning human baby should not be partially birthed, only to have its head cut open and its brain sucked out at the last second.
I take responsibility for also opposing the method wherein a fully formed and functioning human is poisoned with a drug that will bring about a massive heart attack, then either birthed normally (though dead), or dismembered during birth.
I take responsibility for any suggestion that there is no situation wherein this would have to happen in order to save the life of the mother, because the mother is still enduring the birthing process regardless of whether or not they kill the fully formed and functioning child.
I take responsibility for the suggestion that a C-section is the proper course of action when the life of the mother is in danger, just because it's the fastest, safest option.
I take responsibility for any and all suggestions that a child who manages to survive such a procedure and who manages to survive outside of the womb should be given the same respect and proper medical care that any human being deserves when they are in distress.
I take full responsibility for suggesting that any environment that offers such invasive medical procedures should be held to the same medical standards as the places that provides colonoscopies or mole removals.
And finally, I take responsibility for any suggestion that the killing of a child who has actually been born and is resting comfortably in the other room would by definition be infanticide.

I apologize if there was any misunderstanding in regards to my ownership of these comments, and hope that I did not offend any passersby who are in favor of the above-stated actions (as long as we don't do any of it to rabbits, because that'd be animal cruelty and nobody wants to hurt bunnies, so I don't care if I offend the people who want to hurt cute bunnies).

In the future, please consider any comments posted by me to be my own personal comments, and not the comments of anyone else (unless otherwise stated or quoted). I am merely seeking to understand the other side of the argument as best I can, and hope that we can have a calm and rational discussion in this thread.

I am specifically talking about fully formed children who no longer depend on a woman's body for their survival. It has nothing to do with whether or not we can get pregnant. It has to do with whether it is acceptable to kill a fully formed child for no good reason. No medically necessary reason. No issues with the woman's body (the kid is coming out either way. We're just talking about whether we should pop it open and suck out its brain first).

And I'm also talking about the fact that people cheering for such things, even if they do think it should be legal, is disgusting and not just a little bit evil.

The matter of who should be allowed to discuss what is a whole separate topic. Spoiler alert: I think everyone can have an opinion on everything. I would never tell a woman to sit down and keep her mouth shut while the men talk, and I'd expect the same respect in return.

Why make a post specifically about not wanting to take part in this conversation?

And really, seriously, please explain to me how the abortion of a fully formed human being is a women-only issue. As I said, I want to understand the other side. So if you think that I shouldn't have a say because I am identifying as a man at the moment, I'd love to know why. I could understand-but-disagree with that argument when it comes to abortions wherein the baby is dependent on the mother's body for its survival, but this isn't that. This isn't a women's issue. Part of this debate is about whether or not to kill a baby that is in an entirely different room than the mother. If we don't count babies as alive when they're fully developed and functional members of society, when exactly do we start the clock?

I assume you've seen, or held a newborn baby at some point in your life, right? Are you telling me that you'd have no opinion on the subject of someone stabbing them in the head, because it's woman's work to think about baby stuff like that?

I get it if you don't want to discuss the topic. It's not a great topic to discuss. But if you're going to reply just to imply that I don't have a right to an opinion, because my role in all of this is just to look pretty and make sandwiches, please at least explain why.

Did I even express a view since the last time you posted that disclaimer? If you'd like, I could just add the disclaimer to my signature in every post.

But for the record, my views do represent the community as a whole. Sorry.

Administrator's note: ireactions here. I don't like to insert myself into other people's posts, but Informant has no authority to speak for this community and I'm going to ask that this part of his post be seen as a joke. Thank you.

Thus far, I'm the only one whose offered any thoughts. In the absence of other intelligent positions, my views clearly fill the vacuum. I'm thinking of creating a merch store of official Sliders fan community viewpoints, with mugs and t-shirts featuring some of my best quotes.

Yeah, I think I might just stop with political discussion here. There was a lively political crowd back in the day, and it was a good way to push and pull between views. Now, not so much. Probably best to keep things limited to entertainment topics.

I'll throw in my two cents just to do it.  My views don't represent anything.

Three months ago, my wife had a miscarriage.  The baby/zygote/clump of cells/etc was like 10 weeks.  But for a brief time between our first ultrasound and our second, she had a heartbeat.  I say "she" because we'd decided that she was a girl with no reasoning to base that on.  I didn't cry when it happened because I know in my brain that it wasn't really aware of anything and didn't exist long enough to cry over.  I was sad, and she was very sad.  But we'll try again and hopefully have a baby come all the way to term.  But in my heart, every once in a while, I get very sad at the thought that we had a child and she died.  That maybe she was aware and was trying to grow and just couldn't.  That makes me sad.  Is my brain right or is my heart right?  I don't know. 

I tend to land on the same side of the abortion fence as ireactions.  I won't ever have the ability to make a decision on an abortion so I try to stay out of it.  It isn't that I think men don't deserve an opinion, but I feel like my decision has less weight to it because it's not a problem I'd ever have to directly deal with.  It'd be like me having a strong opinion on some sort of military issue for troops in Syria.  I'm not going there, I don't know what it feels like to be there, and I feel like I shouldn't speak.

I do feel like some women feel very powerless, and this is an issue they feel like they have some control over.  "You may control the White House and Congress and the military and the world, but I'll be damned if you control my body."  That's just my thinking - I haven't had anyone confirm that.

I'll leave with an anecdote.

Anecdote - I spoke with a female friend a couple years ago about this topic.  I didn't say much but I did ask this.  If Star Trek-like transporter technology existed that could take an unwanted baby (at any point of development) and transport it safely from the woman's body to some sort of other place (another viable uterus, some sort of incubator, etc), would that solve the problem?  The baby would be safe, the woman would be safe, and everything would be great, right?

She said no.  It'd still be invasive.  It's still the woman's right to end the pregnancy her own way if she wants.  So I think, as much as it's about safety, it's about control. 

But that's just one anecdote.

It breaks my heart to hear this. I'm so sorry for you and your wife.

Where the hell is Informant? Now I have to do his job for him.

I identify as liberal. That said, never have I been more aware of the massive gulf between holding liberal views and being a Democrat. It'd be easy to consider Republicans and anyone who's conservative to be men's right activists and neo-Nazis who are so delusional loyal to alt-right dogma (while denying any of those labels, goodness) that they make scam artist Donald Trump their standard bearer, a man who makes Chevy Chase seem well-adjusted. That said... liberals (Democrats?) are in no way immune to this.

I found a Trump/Russian coordination plausible myself given how Russia seemed determined to support the Trump campaign. But Mueller's report has come in and it hasn't been released, but if it didn't offer evidence or an indictment to collusion, then it indicates another likely truth: that (a) the Russian government had no need to coordinate their assistance with the Trump campaign in order to assist it (b) the Trump campaign passively benefiting from Russian interference is not a crime and (c) that maybe Russian agents wouldn't be so foolish as to make any sort of agreement with Trump, a man notorious for being unable to stop from bragging about affairs that should be kept secret.

Rachel Maddow in her Trump exposes (which didn't expose much) looked like a shining beacon of resistance; now she continues to bleat that the Mueller report has been censored and she just looks ridiculous. If there were a smoking gun in there, it would have come out in the indictments of the probe and because Mueller isn't the sort to permit his work to be misrepresented.

It would have been awesome to expose Trump as a Russian agent if he actually were one, but if he isn't, then this isn't an avenue worth pursuing and it makes Democrats look as deranged as their FOX News/Alex Jones counterparts for continuing to chase after something that clearly doesn't exist. Men are often declaring that no one should ever acknowledge defeat, but knowing when you are beaten isn't a weakness. Actual weakness would be continuing to contribute time, energy and resources to a route that has proven unproductive no matter how worthwhile it seemed at the outset. There's no shame in knowing when you're beaten and finding another battle.

Where the hell is Informant? Now I have to be him and I have to be him in my way.

So, it looks like Joe Biden is on track to win the Democratic nomination. Dear God.

I think that as human beings and politicians go, Biden is better than the worst. However, his electoral message and vision is naive, flawed and stupid. Biden declares that Trumpism is an aberration, a temporary shift in the culture of the American identity. That is simply not true: Trumpism arose because Americans are suffering from some of the worst health care and education systems in the world, a horrific inadequacy of social services and the overall collapse of the middle class with severe income inequality.

Americans are ensickened by pollution and burdened with bankruptcy-inducing medical bills and disappearing jobs that, even when found, are insufficient to pay rent and buy food. Trumpism tapped into this agony by proposing that all these social, economic and environmental ills be blamed on anyone who isn't Caucasian.

Biden may put a friendlier, kinder face on a broken system, but he would simply mark time until the next Trump-esque figure emerged and consolidated discontent into power. If Democrats aren't prepared to address the ills of society that led to this situation, then even a Biden victory over Trump is simply a palliative that doesn't treat the underlying causes.

The Erica Thomas Stuff:

PREFACE - I think the "send her back" stuff is abhorrent, and I don't think any human should ever tell any other human to go back where they came from.  It's important to make all immigrants, especially minorities, feel welcome and American. 

(I shouldn't have to have this preface but I felt it necessary).

If he told her to go back to where she came from or her original country, then roast him.  We don't have room in our society for that, and if you want to say that in public, you get whatever blowback comes at you.  My problem is with two aspects of the story:

1. She's walked back enough of her statement that it might be possible that it wasn't racial at all.  It may just be an asshole who wanted to make a scene at a grocery store.  I'm almost more mad at him for yelling at her because she's pregnant than yelling at her because she's black.  If he didn't say "go back to your country" or "go back to where you came from" then I don't think that's okay either.  You can't yell fire in a crowded room for a reason.

2. Finding the truth these days is exceptionally hard.  When you have to throw out 90% of all publications because they're clearly biased one way or another (#IStandWithErica or #HateHoax), it's hard to find your center.  There are so many different versions of the story out there.  Does he not identify as being white?  Does that matter?  Is he actually an Anti-Trumper and a hardcore Democrat?  Does that matter?  Would he use Trumpy language if he hates Trump?  Does that matter?

There are real, vile, horrible racist things being done and said.  We don't need to make anything up or even give the impression that stuff is being made up.  It's way too volatile.

Oh no, BATWOMAN IS A DISASTER???

Not really an *american* politics question, but regarding the Amazon Rainforest.

Does the UN have the authority to declare the Amazon Rainforest a protected area and, in essence, take control of it?  Brazil's president openly doesn't care about it, and it's fairly important to the entire planet.  It seems irresponsible of all of us to just let it stay in control of one country when it benefits everyone.

Well, I've been wanting to say some things, but I wasn't sure if we were going to let this post stay in exile with Informant.

I don't think Biden is the best candidate, but I like him for two reasons.  One, I think he can win.  I think he has overwhelming popularity with African Americans that Hillary never did.  I saw an infographic that showed, without a doubt, that black Americans could've easily elected Hillary over Trump (all by themselves) and didn't.  I also think the math shows that Democrats have complete control over the electoral college, and it's just a matter of whether or not they want to use it.  Trump won on a list of things that went in his way, and everything has to fall the exact same way for him to win again.  I just don't see it.

Second, he's a one-term guy.  I think his gaffes are, for the most part, harmless.  And I think he can get some control back in the government.  I think a lot of the exciting people we saw in the last several months are going to get big promotions in a Biden administration, and I think we're going to get some level of stability in our government again.  There will be people who know what they're doing in places of power, and that's essentially all I want from 2020-2024.

After that, we'll have another person run.  We survived four years of Trump, and I have no doubt we'll thrive a little better with four years of Biden.

All that being said, I'm sad that the race was still a bunch of people in their 70s.  Mayor Pete wasn't my favorite candidate either, but I liked something he said.  He said he was running because there are a lot of issues that are future issues.  Whether it's climate change or immigration or education or health care, a lot of issues have impacts 10 years, 15 years, 20 years down the road.

And in 20 years, Trump will be dead.  Bernie will be dead.  Biden will be dead.  Warren will be dead.  All these candidates will be dead.  So while I'm sure they are doing what they think is best for the future, they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions.  They'll be gone.  And Pete was saying that he thinks we should have leaders who have to stand and live with their consequences.  And as presidents get older, they're not going to have to do that anymore.  They can just be wild and crazy because who cares?  If the world burns down during their term, they had one foot in the grave already.

I'm disappointed in Gen X.  This should be their time, and no one seems particularly interested in stepping up.

I mean you want the wolf in sheep's clothing or the wolf in wolf's clothing?

Well, I don't consider myself a Democrat.  I'm not even sure I'm fully a liberal.  I think if you were to ask me questions on a real "liberal vs conservative" chart, I'd be right in the middle.  I think the government should help people, but I also think the government is bad at helping people.  I think it's important to have a strong military, but I don't think any one country should be policing the rest.  I would like to live out the words from the Statue of Liberty, but I don't think we should give all illegal aliens a bunch of free things.  I think we need to fix our criminal justice system, but I support the death penalty when it's appropriate.

So, yeah, I'm probably cooler with Biden than most because he's more moderate like me.

My problems are twofold:

1. I think the republicans have sold their souls for Trump.  I don't really understand it, either.  Coming into 2016, the Republicans seemed to hate Trump, but the voters went with him.  And in the end, he helped them win the White House and both chambers of the Senate.   So I see why a lot of them, at least publicly, supported him.  He helped them win a lot.  But I figured as soon as he was in office, he'd have a short leash.  They got a guy that they liked as VP, and I assumed they'd mutiny the second he stepped out of line.  And they didn't.  Even after 2018 when it seemed like his brand was poisoned, they stuck by him.  Even when he did a few impeachable things, they stuck by him.  I figured they would've loved to have something like Ukraine on him in 2016 because they'd have a chance to say "we gave him a chance but he screwed up.  Now he's a *true* republican".  They didn't.  And I think they need to pay for that and learn that selling their soul wasn't good for them.

2. I think we need to stop the pendulum.  I think Trump is a direct response to Obama.  I liked Obama - I voted for him twice.  So don't think of any of this as an indictment of Obama.  But Republicans *hated* Obama.  So when it was time for the Democrats to pick their leader, zero Democrats ran against him (remember, Bernie was an independent, that was the big knock on him in 2016 "He's not even a democrat!").  So to republicans, it looked like the democrats were rubbing their nose in it "You hated having a black dude?  Now get ready for a WOMAN that you HATE."  I think that sentiment is a big reason why Trump won - I think (some) Democrats believed they were untouchable and they could elect whoever they want - why not someone that pisses off the republicans?  And so the republicans picked the guy that democrats would hate the most.  Someone who's against everything they stand for and loud and brash and nationalist and white supremecist.  Someone who would undo everything that OBAMA did.

The pendulum could easily swing back the other way to someone like Bernie who's further left than traditional american democrats.  Which I think is better than what we have now, but what happens when the pendulum swings back?  What if the republicans pick an actual Nazi who's openly Nazi and actually has the strength and charisma to trick the country into supporting him as a whole?

It has to stop.  And I think, in some ways, Biden is a throwback to the pre-Internet ways.  I don't think he's particularly exciting, but I think that's the point.  I think we'd have a boring four years.  And maybe in those four years, we can grow up as a country.

Probably not.  But maybe.

I think Trump is done.  The tanking economy is going to lose him a ton of conservatives who just care about the economy (many of who will secretly be okay with someone like Biden), and the coronavirus debacle is going to cause a bunch of people who have faith in him to lose faith.  His base, brainwashed evangelicals, will still be faithful to him, but there aren't enough of them for him to win.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet "Trump loses in historic landslide" over "Trump wins" in any scenario.

If today's date was October 13, Trump would "postpone" the election.  He may yet attempt to do that anyway.