Search options (Page 5 of 79)

2024-11-30 11:44:53

Thank you for sharing these, Grizzlor. Always good to see your neat finds and to see Zicree, especially after Torme's passing.

2024-11-28 17:03:15

Despite a budget-strapped season, SUPERMAN AND LOIS has been pretty solid and effective at making the isolated episodes with lavish effects feel spectacular enough that the quieter, cheaper episodes are also okay.

There's a lot more happening that I hope to type about in the next few days.

2024-11-25 00:50:21

Here, someone rages about how Democrats fail to offer precarious workers anything.

In the months leading up to the election, The New Republic, The Atlantic, The Guardian, and CNN (those are just the ones I tend to look at) ran a constant parade of articles glibly talking about how awesome the economy is, and how stupid and foolish Americans are to be unhappy with the current state of affairs. Look at the articles; the language could hardly be more condescending.
This is while large swaths of the population are struggling to buy groceries, can never hope to buy a house, can never get started on an independent life, are working ourselves into the ground, and have much less economic status than our parents and grandparents did. Every day we see the contrast between what the elites have and what we don’t. And what little relief we may have felt in our bank accounts during the Covid years has dried up. These celebratory, condescending articles deny what people are living through every day, and they explicitly sneer at people for voicing our plain experience. This is called gaslighting.
I feel that a lot of what circulates in the liberal media bubble is shaped by the fact that most of the writers have never faced eviction, have never been threatened by a rogue cop or an enemy soldier, have never lost the family farm, have never been required to choose between dignity and safety, have never been told that they have to revise their viewpoints if they want to keep a job that they need to survive. You don’t understand our priorities, and you simply don’t see most of the country; you’ve banished us for being too uncouth, and we’ve become invisible. At least until you need someone to make your food, fix your car, or deliver your packages. You simply can’t grasp how residually angry people are, how silenced they feel, or how much we need action and meaningful solutions.
Yes, this includes the specific anger of women and the specific anger of minorities. Obviously. But why should we be angrier with Trump than with the Democrats? The Democrats are the ones who lied and sneered at us and piled on the B.S. while doing basically nothing to help. Trump, for better or worse, intuitively understands this anger and can convincingly claim that he will do some kind of something to try to make it better. The Democrats can’t say that. I mean, they can say it, but nobody’s going to believe them, because all they’ve given us for decades is haughty “messaging” that never translates into substantial, meaningful, fair, and broad-based action. People talk about how Trump is going to take away our rights, and that may well be true, but it’s hard to even care about it when our rights are already thoroughly tiered, hardly existent, and contingent on constricting identity claims, and when every day we confront the stark inequality and looming precarity of our lives.
https://newrepublic.com/article/188669/ … everything

2024-11-24 13:19:51

Democrats seemed to think in 2020 that Trump was a spent force and weren't too concerned about disqualifying or imprisoning him.

That was clearly a mistake.

2024-11-23 19:17:01

On a podcast, Mark Guggenheim was asked: why didn't the CRISIS finale episode show the SMALLVILLE universe to confirm that Clark and Lois were still alive and well and not destroyed?

Mark Guggenheim:
Why didn’t we have SMALLVILLE? I’ll be honest with you. I think it was two reasons.
Number 1: it never occurred to me until I got the question on Twitter that people think we did blow up the SMALLVILLE universe. So part of it was that, and part of it was, we had obviously seen Clark and Lois in episode 2. For the most part, the ‘going around the horn’ was to see all the universes and all the characters that we didn’t get to see.
If I could have done it all over again, it would be awesome to just have a shot of Lois and Clark on the farm, kissing, for the go-around-the-horn-sequence. But yeah, sorry, I dropped the ball on that!
We only had Tom for a few hours, but also, here's the thing: under SAG rules, an actor don't get paid by the amount of time they spend on set. They get paid by the number of episodes they are in. So if Tom was contracted for episode 2, and if Tom appeared in episode 5, that would trigger a completely different payment.
We certainly didn’t have the money for that, but that really wasn’t a factor. It, quite frankly, just didn’t occur to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nESsjqA … rseOfColor

2024-11-23 17:17:30

I've been pondering the Doomsday scenario -- and my conclusion that it might have been best if Davis Bloome's beast had not been called Doomsday and instead called Ruin or World Killer or Armageddon or even just "the Beast".

The problem is that "Doomsday" in the Superman mythology has a certain brand identity, and that brand identity is defined by SUPERMAN #75 where every page is a full-page panel and 90 percent of the issue is Superman fighting Doomsday.

The name is synonymous with an extended superpowered brawl, and despite SMALLVILLE clearly conveying that Doomsday is largely offscreen, too big for the camera, only ever going to be shown in obscured or dimly lit or appendage-focused shots -- it simply couldn't overcome the brand expectation of the name "Doomsday".

It might have been best to call "the Beast" and describe it as "an early surviving prototype of the Doomsday project" to explain that this wasn't the full-blown Doomsday but an earlier model from Zod's deranged genetics experiments.

But I concede that the SMALLVILLE writers probably saw the mythic power of the Doomsday name, and thought they could explain what fans could expect clearly. They... couldn't.

2024-11-22 19:03:36

If Democrats can get their act together, resistance is not futile, says this article where Donald Trump's total inability to run government is already showing itself again:
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/22/resist … d-against/

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the advice, "When they go low, we go high" conceptually, but not every piece of advice applies to every situation at all times. Republicans understand something Democrats don't: politics is not, despite all appearances, playing bridge at the club. It's a knife fight in a sewer.

2024-11-21 20:48:11

There's certainly a lot of disagreement in Democrat circles. Did they swing too far to the right in pursuing Republican voters? Has the Democrat party moved too far to the left in cultural attitudes? Has going too far one way or the other or not far enough cost them the capacity to become a majoritarian party?

I am not sure, but all of these contradictory and opposing takes have mostly one commonality: the working class is a the voting bloc that Democrats need to pursue instead of Never Trumpers or women or minorities or specific communities. People who work for a living are in sufficient numbers to vote Democrats into office and while these other groups have serious deprivations in civil liberties and societal (in)equalities, their numbers are like SLIDERS fandom -- not large enough to go mainstream for majoritarian success.

The other key factor that I've mentioned before that keeps coming up: the majority of voters are not getting their news from pro-democracy sources like MSNBC or Slate.com or The New Republic or even newspapers and TV news. They're getting their news from social media: podcasts and influencers. The Democratic Party in 2024 seemed to barely exist here while Republicans seemed to rule that space. If Democrats want to win elections, they need to start existing in a louder, wider, larger network of pro-democracy news media and social media that's present and prominent even when there isn't an election.

I am really hoping this post will not receive a response insisting that the defeated Democrats in 2024 are a majoritarian success by some Byzantine metric of something or other that doesn't correspond to reality.

2024-11-20 19:14:42

I'm rewatching Season 9 of SMALLVILLE and "Roulette" is a very interesting and ambitious episode. But there's one moment that really jumps out to me as TV perfection -- at one point, Oliver, in the middle of a downward spiral, is trapped in a police interrogation room, having watched his bank accounts hacked and emptied while the room fills with gas. Oliver pounds on the locked door, screams for helps, falls over -- when suddenly, the wall with the door is ripped backwards. Oliver scrambles to his feet in a panic and someone grabs him by both shoulders, holding him up. It's Clark.

"I could hear you yelling," Clark says, and Tom Welling is an effortlessly reassuring, comforting presence to Oliver's terror and confusion. He's just perfect.

2024-11-20 12:56:21

A wise man once remarked: it's possible to commit no errors and still lose. Kamala Harris was a good candidate. But -- and this is something that's going to happen to all of us at various points in life -- she was outmatched by the challenges and circumstances.

She had 107 days, and she understandably operated on a low-risk, narrow strategy trying to eke out a small victory via swing states and the blue wall. It didn't work, but she came close. As vote counts come in, it's become pretty clear: a two point shift towards her in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would have meant a Democrat victory.

107 days is not a lot. Kamala had to deal with Biden's foreign policy where voters, alienated by Biden's support of Israel, didn't feel comfortable voting for Kamala and where many voted for no one. Kamala had to deal with how the Democratic Party was a machine built on big money donors whose corporations are exploiting the very people from whom Democrats need votes, preventing her from offering a more transformational vision of her presidency. Kamala was facing a global anti-incumbent wave.

It was just too much for a 107 day campaign with the VP of the current administration being parachuted in last minute, too late to deal with serious issues in the entire party and offer a vision to address it, too late to have a new strategy that wasn't about running close and hoping to be slightly ahead enough to win.

Which is why, even though Kamala lost... I don't blame her. While I agree with a lot of the Kamala-criticism, I feel it's more criticism of the party than the politician, whose head must have been spinning. The problems were and are structural and systemic and take a lot more than 107 days to sort out.

2024-11-20 09:27:47

Democrats are on the right side of history. But their strategy is on the losing side of history. Their 2024 loss is a matter of public record. I shouldn't be derided overtly or subtly for stating that Democrats lost in 2024 which is a highly observable and entirely factual observation. Defeat is a part of life.

And when people lose, the healthy and well-adjusted person will assess and review how and why they lost and what they can do to achieve better results as opposed to deriding any news source that dutifully reports that the score was 312-226 and not in our favour.

This is a political thread about current events and Kamala's loss is a factual news story. No one should have to debate whether or not Kamala Harris lost the election. Even Kamala isn't debating it.

Kamala's defeat is stressful enough; to deal with someone scornful towards reporting and discussing how she lost is just ridiculous. This is why election denialism is so toxic whether on the left or the right.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

The problems that the Democrats face are many. One, there's Trump-level concerns. Will we ever get to have elections again? Will Trump stack the deck to make it hard/harder/impossible for Democrats to win? Will Trump go after Democrats with his DoJ and there won't be any Democrats to run in 2026/2028? ireactions says that I shouldn't worry about this stuff, and since his head is probably clearer than mine, I will believe him.

I wouldn't say you shouldn't worry. I'm saying that it will not be as easy and immediate as Trump thinks or hopes it will be, and that Democrats are not defenseless... but they are also not invulnerable.

77 million people voted against Trump. That is cause for hope.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi … rcna179969

2024-11-20 07:15:54

You are gravely mistaken to think "Maybe he'll come back" was an expression of anything but dread, and your thinly-veiled election denialism is thinly-veiled, conspicuous and obvious: every editorial that examines the election results is met with your sneering, cultlike brag about how the losing candidate was too perfect to have lost.

There is no analysis, there is no review, merely ad hominem derision towards anyone discussing how Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election to which you react as though it were stated as a defamatory slur as opposed to a factual matter of public record.

Your goal is obvious: you want people to be uncomfortable saying that Kamala lost and fear your reprisal.

This will no longer be tolerated. This is a thread about current events existing in reality. The unpleasant but observable reality is that Donald Trump won the 2024 election and will be president again. No one trying to discuss this unhappy reality should have to deal with overt hostility or subtle microaggressions from you being offended by discussion of widely reported, loser-conceded election results.

2024-11-19 22:22:41

I think it would have happened eventually. A jealous football player would have leaked a video, an ex-con with an axe to grind would have posted something just to lash out and strike back. Not everyone in Smallville is an angel. Someone was going to film something and post something. All it takes is one person with a grudge and a phone.

2024-11-19 22:13:16

If you are not at all the person described in my summary, why are you so insulted?

Your denial that Trump defeated the Democrats in 2024 shows a total inability to deal with the obvious and unfortunate reality that Kamala isn't going to be President.

I see your supposed about-face for what it truly is: a passive-aggressive, veiled harassment due to your anger over your unproven conspiracy theory not being permitted on this board.

You spent months sneering and jeering at anyone and everyone who had doubts about Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, bragging about how they would win the 2024 election. When they lost, you decided to post unproven stories about the voting machines being hacked by satellites to continue your mockery and ridicule and try to avoid being on the receiving end. You were told that election denialism would get you banned.

Now you are angry whenever anyone describes the Democratic defeat of 2024 as an observable fact and a matter of public record. You are triggered because your preferred response -- it was hacked, it was rigged, it was cheated, they actually won -- was identified as abuse and harassment and conversation hijacking that was going to -- and still can -- get you banned from this board.

You decided you would leave and find some other community. I see the search went well since you're back.

And now, fuming over how your conspiratorial wings have been clipped, you're now choosing the path of passive-aggressive microaggressions towards anyone who engages in critical review of why Democrats lost the 2024 election because if you made your preferred response to that conceded-by-Kamala reality, it would be your last post on this board for awhile.

Perhaps you're thinking if you just colour in the lines long enough and gradually escalate, you can seamlessly resume your curtailed behaviours. You'd be mistaken.

Perhaps you simply have nowhere else to go because you can't find a community that will discuss politics in your preferred fashion where the Democratic Party is a cult and you are a slavish disciple and the Democratic defeat of 2024 is denied and ignored.

No one who thinks air-gapped voting machines can be hacked by satellite has any capacity to evaluate what is and isn't a credible news source. Your measure of credibility at this point is whatever supports your cult.

It is very obvious that your comments were and are designed to intimidate people discussing how Democrats lost the election. You want to make it uncomfortable for anyone who can address unpleasant but provable reality.

You want people -- and you've targeted me -- to be walking on eggshells, afraid to mention that Democrats lost the 2024 election, worried about what harassment you'll unleash in response.

It is very obvious in your responses how triggered and offended you are that anyone dares to cite how Democrats lost in 2024 without bringing up your pet conspiracy theory.

Your election denialism is not welcome here. Your rebranded and thinly-veiled election denialism is not welcome here. Your hostility towards people discussing widely-reported and conceded election results and current events is not welcome here. Your cult is not welcome here.

2024-11-19 18:45:47

In a world of smartphone cameras, YouTube, and Smallville having at least one petty criminal, I do not see how Clark's secret could have stayed secret.

THE X-FILES was a 90s show in a very internet-limited era. SUPERNATURAL started in 2005, and it was an era of talk and text phones and low resolution web video; it was not fit for documentarians or plausible revelations. Also, monsters were not sufficiently mainstream and hadn't made major media appearances. It was only in 2008 that YouTube offered HD video streaming; it was only 2011 that the iPhone could film in 1080p video.

Superman, however, is an in-universe global icon in an era of even $200 smartphones being able to film 4K video and upload them to YouTube, and the SUPERMAN AND LOIS series began in 2021 and high definition web video has been a plot element. I don't think Superman can keep a secret identity in a small town in this era; once the town knew, it was going to leak and the world would know.

2024-11-19 18:38:04

Some interesting analysis on where Kamala Harris' campaign faltered. Critical review is always preferable to cult-like obsequious fawning.

M. Steven Fish:
During the DNC, the Democrats cast Trump as weak and pathetic rather than treating him like an 800-pound gorilla who should terrify us. Harris largely did the same during the debate. The proof of concept was there: When the Democrats switched to a higher-dominance mode, they controlled the narrative, their prospects brightened and Trump stalled.
But the Democrats then reverted to their low-dominance norm. They fell back on their timeworn, futile tactic of ceding the spotlight to Trump. Rather than just ridiculing Trump’s victim complex, promising to kick his self-pitying ass and then immediately directing attention back to their own great plans for the country, the Democrats devoted precious campaign time, especially in the critical homestretch, to repeating Trump’s increasingly outrageous statements and enjoining everyone to join them in being afraid and offended.
I’m hard-pressed to think of a single novel, provocative, brash, daring, or entertaining thing that Harris said during the last seven weeks of the campaign. One consequence was that a lot of people remained unsure what she stood for. Even worse was the widespread suspicion that she didn’t stand for anything.
We all watched the spectacle unfold. How would her policies differ from Biden’s? Well, she couldn’t say but could confirm that her presidency wouldn’t just be a re-run of his. How, then, would it differ? Her answer: Well, you know, her first term wouldn’t just be a Biden second term. How, then, did she vote on California’s Proposition 36, which would recriminalize retail theft and some drug offenses? Her answer: “I am not going to talk about the vote on that.” On immigration: Didn’t she take office seeking to decriminalize illegal border crossings and didn’t she and Biden wait too long to deal with the border problem? Her answer: Our immigration system is broken. Fine, but didn’t she take too long to try to fix it? Her answer: The problem predated Biden and her. OK, but couldn’t they have acted earlier? Her answer: She had prosecuted drug traffickers earlier in her career.
It came to look as if avoiding risk was the name of her game and that her aim was to run out the clock without saying anything controversial. This is what low-dominance politics looks like.
Democrats’ usual way of abnormalizing Trump — did you see what he just said?! Aren’t you scared to death by what this bully is doing?! — has got to stop. That approach only builds Trump up. The only effective way to deal with Trump is to ridicule him, troll him and otherwise diminish him with expressions of disdain and contempt. As we’ve discussed, for a brief period during the campaign, that’s what the Democrats did and it worked wonders. After the Democrats returned to making the election a referendum on Trump and his awfulness, Trump bulldozed them without breaking a sweat.
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/19/how-de … messaging/

2024-11-19 18:27:28

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I think these voters are stupid because they don't know and they don't want to know. They fall for dumb little slogans because they want to put absolutely no thought into it. I don't care how they get their news or what their politics are, but I do care that they have a 6th grade understanding of how the country works.
And we are in this situation because we've allowed the dumbest among us to elect the king of the dummies.

On a personal level, it's not your business to care.

On a political level, it would probably be good for the Democratic Party to figure out how these people get their news and what their politics are because, apparently, we need some of their votes to win.

2024-11-19 17:48:17

MSNBC is clearly no longer penetrating the consciousness of the electorate when Republicans have taken over social media and dominate the airwaves, and social media is unfortunately far more ubiquitous than MSNBC.

But speaking of MSNBC, here's an argument from them for Democrats to run on economic populism.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi … rcna180615

It actually has some actionable ideas and perspectives as opposed to another pointless "Democrats should change nothing about their losing strategy / Kamala was great / no ideas for how Democrats can win going forward" essay.

It seems to me that the nonsense on the left wing spectrum is coming from anyone who has an ongoing history of harassing others for discussing how Democrats lost the 2024 election, anyone who demands Democrats change nothing about their current trajectory of losing the 2024 election, anyone has no real ideas on how Democrats can win after losing the 2024 election but feels they must regularly convey how they lack any ideas for Democrats to win while belittling anyone else who tries to come up with any.

Democrats lost the election in 2024. That is the current factual premise for political discussion about Democrats in this thread. The Democrat defeat of 2024 is a current event of public record. Anyone who is offended and triggered by discussion of how Democrats lost in 2024 should really seek some other community to discuss politics in their preferred manner.

2024-11-18 17:58:32

I don't know what small town Slider_Quinn21 lives in where the entire populace could keep a secret like Clark Kent being Superman from reaching the rest of the world in this day and age, but I would like to live there.

2024-11-18 17:56:42

The upshot of this editorial: Kamala Harris was a great candidate, Democrats couldn't and shouldn't do anything differently to win elections from now on. What exactly is the point of this? Kamala Harris isn't going to be president, so describing her merits is pointless. If this person -- or anyone, really -- won't discuss and can't think of what Democrats might do to stop losing elections, then I wonder why they bothered to write a column at all.

I wonder why anyone produces political opinions that contain no ideas, suggestions or anything that is in any way productive or useful. Or why they think idea-free, suggestion-vacant, non-constructive responses are a worthwhile contribution in discussing what Democrats might do to start winning elections again.

Perhaps, if they have no ideas on how Democrats might do to win from now on, they could... apply their pen to some other field.

**

Speaking as someone who masks and uses vaccines, democratic people don't force others to wear headgear they don't want and get injections they don't want. Someone who believes in democracy will recommend and encourage, oppose misinformation, and respect individual choice. And given how a two point shift in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania would have won Kamala Harris the election, the Democratic Party isn't in any shape to disdain people whose votes they need.

The contempt and disdain for people who voted Trump or don't mask or don't vaccinate may be very satisfying from a personal standpoint, but it isn't very helpful in terms of political campaigns and political messaging.

**

The issue of misinformation that Slider_Quinn21 describes reflects how Republicans have now dominated the mediasphere. Voters supported health care, minimum wage increases and other progressive ballot measures but didn't support progressive candidates enough to win the election. This means that Democrats' progressive platforms are not reaching low information voters sufficiently to identify the ballot measures they want with the party that supports them.

This is also the result of a weak Democratic media presence and strategy. President Biden was distant and hidden away from the press and felt absent. Democrats have for too long only tried to be present in media in the months leading to elections and on being a strong presence in key swing states, with Harris' 107 day campaign trying to eke out a narrow victory.

Democrats need to be more present and central in media, both through current broadcast and social media networks and in producing a left of center, fact-oriented media system to compete with the right.

Slider_Quinn21 calls Trump voters "stupid voters". I am going to argue that they are "struggling voters": people with limited media exposure, who maybe can't afford to pay for online newspapers, who are seeing all their news via memes and Twitter, who are so tired from working three jobs and taking care of family that they can't seek out non-partisan or left of center media, with Republican-coverage flooding their line of sight. Democrats and left of center media needs to reach these struggling voters.

2024-11-17 18:59:57

THE BIG BANG THEORY had a prequel series, YOUNG SHELDON, which now has a spinoff, GEORGIE AND MANDY'S FIRST MARRIAGE. Georgie, a cheery Southern mechanic, first appeared on THE BIG BANG THEORY played by Jerry O'Connell.

On YOUNG SHELDON, Georgie is a teenager played by Montana Jackson, who now is the lead of GEORGIE AND MANDY'S FIRST MARRIAGE. Georgie is a 19 year old high school dropout who gets the late 20s Mandy (Emily Osment) pregnant in a one night stand. Georgie immediately drops every frivolous pursuit in life to support his baby and Mandy, for whom Georgie is head over heels in love. One of their supports is Jim, the father of Mandy who is played by Will Sasso (Gomez Calhoun).

So, if you ever felt the need to watch young Quinn and Gomez as pseudo father and son, here you are. Emily Osment is splendid too.

2024-11-17 12:46:00

Grizzlor's take makes the most sense to me.

According to Axios, Biden's stimulus, while well-intentioned and not the sole cause of inflation, added about 3 percent for a total of 7 percent, and that addition caused the increase in federal borrowing rates.
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/10/trump- … -inflation

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco says, however, without stimulus, the economy might have tipped into deflation and been even harder for everyone -- but regardless, Democrats were associated with rising prices.
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insi … inflation-

As a person who identifies with wokeism -- it's obviously not a winning political message and comes off as cultural policing. Even Andrew Yang of the Forward Party says so. It seems we need the non-woke vote to win. https://www.andrewyang.com/blog/abandon … -behaviors

It would probably be best to focus on making life better for the working class by serious and meaningful structural changes to challenge corporate exploitation of labour instead of a tax credit here and a subsidy there that only helps the middle class.

As much as public health is a political issue of policy, do vaccines and masks really need to be a political item anymore? Use them if you want them (which I do), no need to be offended by anyone who doesn't.

2024-11-16 19:43:37

Two contrary perspectives:

The Bulwark says Democrats is doing fine with outreach to working class voters but have drifted too far left for most of them and warns that left wing populism is too weak to overcome right wing populism, and Democrats must pursue centrist policies to win Democrats and Republicans alike: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/democrats- … the-allure

The Jacobin says Harris wasted her time trying to campaign as an acceptable candidate to Republicans instead of offering left wing populism and major structural change needed to help the working class, and that Democrats depend on wealthy donors who are squeezing the very voters Democrats need to win: https://jacobin.com/2024/11/harris-trum … ts-workers

I wonder where the truth is and if Slider_Quinn21 will tell me.

2024-11-16 19:27:07

I am not saying Trump would not try to do some or all of what you fear -- I'm just questioning whether or not Trump could actually succeed or find the compliance he would need. Trump's goal is to slash the headcount of every federal agency and reduce them all to being staffed solely with loyalists led by loyalists -- except this smaller workforce would then lack the manpower, experience and ability to carry out complex schemes of conspiracy and subterfuge like election sabotage and fraud while being easy for Democrats and media and civil liberties agencies to monitor fully and totally.

Meanwhile, if Trump finds it untenable to make his cutbacks, then we have federal agencies staffed with such a wide range of people, some of whom would follow illegal or fraudulent orders; some of whom would refuse; some of whom would leak them as whistleblowers. There's also the question of whether or not police or military would follow illegal or fraudulent orders or if enough would lose confidence to dissent in the ranks.

Ultimately, if Trump tried to pull any of these, he could undoubtedly go some part of the distance, but he'd face chaos and a rise to civil war. That's bad in itself; I just don't think Trump has the masterful control to have the outcomes that he would seek from these gambits. Republicans have bowed to Trump over and over again because he served their own ambitions, but I am not sure if illegality that would lead to resistance in the ranks and civil conflict would serve them or their wish to live in luxury as professional politicians.

I don't think your scenario is farfetched in what Trump might want attempt, but the results would be messy and explosive as opposed to triumph and dominance for Trump.

2024-11-15 21:14:57

I guess it's possible that no one is dumb enough to launch a missile at the Kent Farm.

2024-11-15 21:07:45

The Onion buys Alex Jones' InfoWars. LOL.
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/lates … rcna180184

2024-11-15 18:22:34

My understanding of the ruling: Trump only has immunity for actions relating to core presidential powers and official acts. Elections do not fall under the banner of core presidential powers and official acts. The Supreme Court ruling is unjust, abhorrent and stretches the limits of the presidential office -- but not to the extent of empowering Trump to stop elections.

The ruling gives Trump immunity in command of the military, in influencing the department of justice, executing laws, and control of the executive branch, and that is a disturbing amount of power. But elections are the domain of the individual Secretary of States or Lieutenant Governors, not the president.

Why did the conservative Supreme Court justices do this? They have been trying to secure minority rule for decades and Trump's case allowed them to consolidate more power for conservative presidents and to remove the levers that Democrats might pull to constrain conservatives. Trump suited their agenda.

The ruling doesn't define official acts in order to allow assassination. While Trump commands the military, commanding assassinations and massacres in violation of domestic and international law would see at least some degree of military resistance and refusal and be considered both an illegal order and an unofficial act.

Even with loyalist generals and promised pardons, military personnel could find themselves facing state level and international charges. It would lead to military walkouts or infighting or both as well as international condemnation, sanctions and diplomatic withdrawals.

This isn't like ARROW where every police officer magically became a loyal henchman when Diaz was blackmailing the city and police administration. At the same time, that resistance would not necessarily be throughout or consistent... so the situation would be messy and chaotic as opposed to cleanly in Trump's control.

Could Trump use the core powers he does have to make voting difficult? Yes, but I don't think he could do away with elections or pressure enough states to go along with it.

2024-11-15 15:23:20

I was really moved by Clark surrendering to the evitable and not using time travel or a body double and such to undo the latest change to his life... but I wonder what it means, practically, now that everyone has Superman's home address. It's possible we'll just never have to deal with it as the show is so close to its final hours.

2024-11-15 12:07:03

A lot of left-leaning people are following Slider_Quinn21's lead and just disengaging from news and social media:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … e-00189655

The exhaustion of the Resistance anti-Trumpers is palpable.

That said... I am not sure Trump can really suspend future elections or that he would have any support to do so. Even if Republicans have little regard for civil liberties and democracy, they ultimately want the system of government which they have shamelessly exploited for their own gain to continue after Trump has run his last campaign or passed away.

They plan on being around after Trump; Trump installing himself as dictator for life would leave a power vacuum and a chaotic situation beyond their control when he dies. Government would be fractured into separate fiefdoms and competing factions. The loss of central control and authority would turn their luxurious lives of playing politics into a desperate struggle for power.

Trump hardly has that many years left. I can't see the Supreme Court or the House or the Senate suspending elections when they plan to exist after Trump is gone and depend on the legitimacy of running for office or being appointed by those who ran for office. They wouldn't maintain elections out of morality and ethics, however, as much as out of maintaining a system they've turned to their advantage while maintaining a facade of being respectable.

I think is more likely that Trump and government would make voting as inconvenient and difficult as possible for Democrats, mount legal challenges to vote counts, try to stop counts. That's also definitely of concern. And the VP might refuse to certify the results of the election. But if Trump isn't running in 2028, will a future Republican candidate have the cultlike devotion that Trump has to engage in 2020 style election denlalism?

The situation is bad, but I am not sure it is hopeless.

2024-11-14 20:38:04

Slate offers Trump some passingly friendly advice: do nothing and coast on Biden's achievements.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … riffs.html

(We all know he won't.)

2024-11-13 17:21:12

I am really sorry for what you're going through. It is awful and absurd. It's like that high school bully I got suspended when I was a kid and thought I would never see again suddenly showing up at the office. Just insane.

I don't know if Trump can actually suspend future elections. Also, would he really want to stay in politics once his debts are paid and his trials are dismissed? His political campaign was an exercise in evading debt and criminal proceedings.

Trump's victory was not a landslide. He seems to have won by about two points in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which, if shifted in the opposite direction, would have won Harris the White House.
https://www.thenation.com/article/polit … -election/

Chris Hayes writes: "Trump has a destructive plan for America. But we have the tools to stop it."
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/lates … rcna179161

Blue state governors are fighting back:
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/13/blue-s … op-terror/

Slate reminds us that Republican government will be disliked as much as Democrat government:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … s-why.html

**

There has been quite a bit of unsubstantiated election denialism in this thread. It makes me very upset and unhappy.

It's really difficult to deal with a friend who isn't content to believe what they do, but actively hijacks every single political conversation, deflecting every criticism of Democrat strategies to focus on making false claims about how there is widespread evidence that the election was hacked.

I can't say the election wasn't hacked, but there is no widespread evidence. I cannot find a single news story about any defeated Democrat claiming they were hacked and contesting the election for a recount or a runoff.

This person demands their speculations be considered factual. This conversational bullying is incredibly hurtful. They are implicitly dismissing everyone else's subjects as worthless, tacitly declaring that any political discussion should be entirely in terms of their unverified speculations, misrepresented as fact. I have asked them to cease comments of this nature; they continue.

I have politely explained that these behaviours resemble the tactics of a cult. It's controlling, it's gaslighting, it's insulting, it's hurtful, it's stressful -- and I see that, even when told how upsetting and harassing and abusive it is, this friend doesn't care, they keep interrupting other subjects to say the election was hacked, having previously said that Elon Musk hacked the election with the Starlink satellite network.

Elections officials across the board are pointing out that this is physically impossible.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-e … d6356cb68b

Patrick Gannon, North Carolina State Board of Elections: "Satellite-based internet devices were not used to tabulate or upload vote counts in North Carolina. In addition, our tabulated results are encrypted from source to destination preventing results being modified in transit. And no, tabulators and ballot-marking devices are never connected to the internet in North Carolina."
Mike Hassinger, Georgia secretary of state’s office: "We don’t use Starlink equipment for any part of our elections, and never have. Our election equipment is 100% air-gapped and never connected to the internet."
Matt Heckel, Pennsylvania Department of State: "Counties do not use Starlink to transmit unofficial or official election results. No voting system in Pennsylvania is ever connected to the internet.
David Becker, founder and executive director of The Center for Election Innovation and Research: "It is not possible that Starlink was used to hack or change the outcome of the US presidential election. If anyone tried to interfere with the machines to rig the election, it would be discovered through multiple means, including reconciling the registered voters who cast ballots with the number of votes, as well as the audits."
Pamela Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting: "While Starlink provided connectivity in a number of jurisdictions for electronic poll books (EPBs) in this election, neither Starlink nor other types of communication networks play any role in counting votes. Our elections produce huge quantities of physical evidence. A satellite system like Starlink cannot steal that."

The air-gapped, satellite-detached nature of voting machines are a factual matter of computer engineering. No election official has lent any credibility to the claims that the election was hacked via satellite or that tabular alterations could compromise crosschecking against paper results.

Finally, I had to tell this person that if they continued to engage in derailing conversations with unproven conspiracies, they would be subject to a temporary ban. They declared that they were being punished for opposing Trump and were leaving.

I would say they were chastised for hijacking any discussion that isn't about their unproven theories, theories which cite 'widespread evidence' but offers... speculative social media posts from so-called experts who think hacking an election "simple, stupid, easy", as though an air-gapped machine is as vulnerable as a networked Square.

I didn't ban their account. Maybe they'll be inclined to return. But I should not be harassed with misinformation and abused with topic hijacking when trying to have a factual discussion about politics. And I can't keep monitoring and addressing it day after day after day after day. I have other responsibilities.

2024-11-13 11:34:10

Without speaking for Slider_Quinn21, no one citing the 2024 election results -- a matter of public record -- should be harassed with unverified claims that the results are invalid. No losing Democrat and no election official have taken that stance.

The claim that Starlink was used to hack the election is false. Voting machines are not connected to the internet to that degree if at all.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024 … s-election

The supposedly missing votes are not missing, just not yet counted, and no elections agency or official has claimed there was fraud.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-2 … 68a1362518

Could there be some means of circumventing the ballots and the vote count that just hasn't come to light yet? Yes, there could be. But as it stands, voter fraud having tipped 2024 to Trump is an unproven claim.

Discussion of Democrats strategies and errors is consistently being deliberately derailed by one poster making unproven claims of voter fraud. That is a tactic of abuse and harassment to suppress criticism and review of Democratic performance. To attack anyone who voices concerns and critiques of the techniques that Democrats use to run for office. I have asked this poster to cease their abuse and harassment.

Every time this happens, I am forced to respond to each and every one of these claims to establish that this harassment is not appropriate, that these claims are not proven. And that people should be able to discuss current events and matters of public record and critique Democrats without constant persecution and misinformation where theories are falsely presented as facts.

I can't deal with it anymore. It's too stressful and upsetting and mentally draining. I also do not have time to do it anymore. I can't spend any more of my lunch breaks addressing this behaviour; I can't deal with it during my off hours and expect to get any of my other tasks done.

2024-11-13 08:38:31

ireactions wrote:

Having lost the election, the defunct Harris campaign is now... hitting up donors for more money!?!
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … ising.html
Oh for heaven's sake.

QuinnSlidr wrote:

Now THAT's propaganda. It ain't over until it's over and all the votes are counted and are ensured to be properly executed and not fraud. That sack of shit Trump brought 60+ cases to court to contest the 2020 election and lost. I don't think it's something that should count against us to contest this election ONCE given all the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and things that are WRONG with this election. Defunct? Far from it. She stated in her concession speech that even though she conceded this election, she wasn't giving up the fight.
These BS rethuglicans still expect us to believe that overturning Roe v. Wade did not cause a blue wave and that millions of Democrats sat out this election? They expect us to believe that 1. The person with the far better ground game lost, 2. All the many hundreds of celebrities and endorsements for Kamala lost including a Taylor Swift and Beyonce army, 3. A lying 34-time convicted felonious racist rapist sack of shit who utilized Russian assistance to fraudulently steal this election who's hated by more than 54% of the country got more votes than the most qualified Presidential candidate in 300 years?
LOL

QuinnSldr, I've asked you not to post unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud as factual statements, especially when no election official or losing Democratic candidate has made any claims of voter fraud. But you have continued to present these theories as facts.

I have also pointed out that your unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud are a tactic that suppresses criticism of Democrat politicians and silences critical analysis of the strategies employed by Democratic politicians and the Democratic National Party. I have asked you not to engage in this harassment anymore. But you have continued to do so.

If you make another non-factual claim as fact and engage in these intimidation tactics, I'm going to have to suspend you for 48 hours and then increase the suspension span with each incident.

People have the right to criticize Democratic National Party strategies and Democrat campaigns and positions without being accused of being anti-democratic. The concept of democracy is not synonymous with any one party or politician.

No one should have to deal with your ongoing harassment for mentioning the results of the 2024 US election in which Democrats lost and the president-elect is not the Democratic candidate. Those results are a matter of public record, just as Trump's criminal convictions and business failures are a matter of public record that you're free to post without persecution.

I don't like giving this warning. But your behaviour, even if you are unaware of it, is clearly to intimidate others from discussing how Democrats can rebuild their defeated party. That necessitates that I respond to it -- and I simply don't have time to keep addressing it, especially when my requests for you to regulate and moderate your behaviour in this forum have been ignored.

2024-11-12 21:05:49

Having lost the election, the defunct Harris campaign is now... hitting up donors for more money!?!
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … ising.html

Oh for heaven's sake.

2024-11-12 19:32:40

I agree that Lex in most depictions is a genius. For me, the conman part of his personality dominates, but I can see why you'd go with genius.

Lex (Rosenbaum) wants to be loved. But part of being a good friend and earning the love of others -- and it took me way too long to learn this -- is to be present without being controlling. It means you're not going to strong-arm people into anything; they have to make their own decisions themselves, and you're simply standing by even if they don't choose to come to you in that moment (or ever).

But Lex exerts crazy amounts of pressure to try to bend friends to do what he thinks is best for them (and him) and he turns love into hatred. Lex is completely unwilling to confront his own role in this repeated dynamic. Lex insists that manipulating people into seeing him as their benefactor and savior is heroic and self-sacrificing, even though that heroism is often fraudulent and the sacrifices are self-induced suffering.

The most revealing moment about Lex for me, strangely -- is a scene where he isn't even present. It's in "Bulletproof", where Lana learns that Lex was horrifically injured by 250 tonnes of ice collapsing on him and is depending on his team building a supersuit, via Project Prometheus, to restore his paralyzed and frostbite ravaged body to full health and give him superpowers.

Lana steals all the project files, Tess pursues Lana with a gun, and Lana gets the upper hand and reveals something terrible to Tess: when Tess was injured in an explosion, Lex saved Tess' life with a surgical team -- but he had implanted into Tess a nanotransmitter connected to Tess' optic nerve, enabling Lex to see everything through her eyes at any time. "He's watching us now," Lana tells Tess.

The fact that Lex decided to surveil Tess by hijacking her eyes reveals a pathological need for total control of others at all times in all ways. This is a deeply disturbed human being who doesn't believe anyone could ever love or even like him. He monitors them to this absolute degree to see if they're still loyal or if they'll turn on him. He needs to position them into subservience under his dominance. He treats Tess as a tool for his own use with total disregard her individuality or autonomy.

Cudlitz is just the same. He doesn't care about his daughter except as a thinly moral justification for lashing out at the Kents. She's just a possession that he considers stolen so that he can have an excuse for his aggression. He's Lex without Michael Rosenbaum's air of intelligence and charisma.

2024-11-12 18:58:47

Against my better judgement, I've been rewatching SMALLVILLE and, to my surprise, the show is much better than I remember it being. Season 1 is good, Seasons 3, 5 and 6 are strong, and Season 8 is my favourite so far.

One near-universal criticism of Season 8 is that the entire season built to a Clark/Doomsday fight and failed to deliver with Doomsday knocking Clark across the city in one blow; Clark grabbing Doomsday and leaping into the geothermal facility that Oliver detonates with Clark throwing Doomsday to the bottom of a geothermal well with the collapsed structure entrapping Doomsday. The complaint is that the entire season built to a huge fight that consists of one punch, one leap, and an explosion.

... I don't see it. I don't see how Season 8 was offering any buildup to a big fight. At all. Throughout Season 8, Doomsday is always filmed at a distance or partially obscured or in shadow or simply off camera as he attacks. We see isolated portions of Doomsday's arms as he slashes Jimmy and claws Clark. Any full body shots are brief and darkly lit. We never get a good look at it.

To me, this is the show making it very clear: Doomsday is more of a force and a presence than an actual character. The visual language of Season 8 makes it very clear that Doomsday is a monster kept at a distance and in the dark, and there is going to be little to no overt portrayal of Doomsday except in the guise of Davis Bloome. Doomsday is a monstrosity beyond human comprehension, barely contained in human shell, so horrific that the camera on SMALLVILLE dares not look at him.

Also, the Doomsday costume doesn't really hold up well in full lighting.

I don't feel SMALLVILLE ever built up expectations that there would be a huge fight between Clark and Doomsday. If anything, it made it clear that Doomsday was going to always be a slightly out of focus, dimly lit figure. The emphasis was also on how Doomsday was more powerful than Clark and any straight fight between Clark and Doomsday would be short, brutal, and lethal for Clark -- which is why Clark's strategy was not to kill Doomsday but to bury him.

However, while that is clearly the message that SMALLVILLE conveyed to the audience, it's very clear to me that I'm in the minority and I was the only one who heard it. The universal criticism of Season 8 is that the fight with Doomsday was a huge disappointment and didn't pay off all the buildup... so clearly, the creators failed to convey the expectations they were setting to anyone but me. It's very clear to me that absolutely no one agrees with me on this.

2024-11-12 18:19:55

The Bulwark would like to remind us that there are no permanent defeats in America or in politics.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/there-are- … nt-defeats

2024-11-11 18:59:07

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Well they're about to find out how much Trump will serve them. Trump won't care because he'll have his immunity and the billions of dollars he's about to get out of the government. But after the promises that he made to people that he a) has no ability to provide and b) has no interest in providing, there should* be a lot of really pissed off people when prices go up, jobs disappear, and Trump takes everything for himself.
Again, the worse it is for Trump voters, the better it is for America. So bring it on.

I worry about how this will affect you.

What could Democrats have said to working class voters and Latinos and white women before Trump destroyed the economy and the social safety net?

What can Democrats say after Trump tears it all down?

What can Democrats do to be the party of working class voters instead of the party of Uber executives?

**

Eric Blanc on why there is hope and how Trump is not invincible:
https://jacobin.com/2024/11/trump-elect … rats-labor

2024-11-11 17:34:17

Why did Democrats lose Latinos? Jack Herrera explores this.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … s-00188769
If Republicans continue their gains with Latinos at the same stunning rate, it will be enough to keep Democrats out of power for generations. And yet, Democrats might not be in as much danger as it appears. There’s evidence that this year’s vote does not represent a pure, wholesale ideological transformation of Latinos. I met voters who thought of the election simply as a referendum on the economy.

The school teachers and gardeners and ranchers didn’t talk like Steven Bannon or J.D. Vance. They talked about the price of milk and gas. More than that, they saw national Democrats as apathetic — the party didn’t see their path to victory going through many Latino neighborhoods, so they focused elsewhere. And the results reflected that.

The morning after the election, I got lunch with Chuck Rocha, a Democratic campaign strategist who came to fame after he helped Sanders perform shockingly well with Latinos in South Texas and elsewhere.

Rocha never went to college, and his introduction to politics was working in the plant’s union, alongside the men in his family. That eventually led him to the Democratic Party, which Rocha joined in 1990, hoping to, as he recently put it, “fight NAFTA, drain the swamp of over-educated rich people in power, stop investing my money in foreign wars and prioritize making things in America again.”

Over our table, Rocha raised his eyebrows and asked me, “Who does that sound like today?”

The hard truth for Democrats is that their problems with Latinos, and their problems with all working class voters, go beyond Trump — these are people who feel they’ve been materially failed by Democrats for a generation.

2024-11-11 17:24:00

Snopes has debunked the claim that 20 million votes are missing.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/milli … -election/

Jen Easterly, Director of US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, says: "we have no evidence of any malicious activity that had a material impact on the security or integrity of our election infrastructure."
https://www.securitymagazine.com/articl … -elections

Speculative theories to the contrary are not facts. Neither election officials nor the losing candidates of the 2024 election have given any credence to the claims that the election was hacked.

It's important to discuss how ridiculous and unbelievable it feels that Trump won. I'm in shock. It's important to discuss election security. And it's important to be open to theories so long as they are clearly identified as theories.

However, the speculative subject of 2024 election hacking should not be used to discourage critical appraisals of Democrats.

Someone may say, "The Democrats lost the working class vote and needs to work out why and how they can get them back in 2026 and 2028." It is not acceptable to reply, "They only lost because the election was hacked!" or "You and Insert Working Class or Latino or Muslim Focused Politician or Analyst need to shut up!"

It is not acceptable to use this or other tactics to try to silence critical analysis of Democrats. America isn't a cult, it's a democracy.

For now.

(Ominous fade to credits.)

2024-11-10 12:47:59

More on how the Republican chokehold on social media influenced the election:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … s-00188548

It would certainly explain why voters supported progressive ballot measures but then voted for a fascist candidate.

2024-11-10 11:45:07

The coalescing narrative is that Democrats lost the working class.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/1 … e-00188547

One criticism from David Sirota: Democrats since 2016 have focused so much on winning moderate Republicans and Never Trump voters, but they don't appear to be a large swing voting bloc, whereas working class voters do have the numbers to make a difference.
https://jacobin.com/2024/11/harris-trum … ts-workers

Slider_Quinn21 says Democrats have lost the 'stupid' people vote. I would suggest that the vote they've lost is non-college educated, working class people for whom news is primarily social media and Republican-influenced or dominated networks that have boxed out non-partisan and left of center media.

Sirota notes why working class voters left Democrats after the Clinton and Obama administrations:

David Sirota:
When Bill Clinton rammed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) through a Democratic Congress in the early 1990s, the most Democratic trade-exposed districts in America quickly became the country’s most Republican districts. As this deep-dive study shows, culturally conservative working-class voters who had been sticking with the Democratic Party because of its economic policies saw the trade deal as proof there was no reason to stick around anymore.
Then came former President Barack Obama’s populist 2008 campaign, raising the prospect of a real crackdown on the Wall Street villains who pillaged the working class during the financial crisis. The appeal delivered a huge electoral mandate, which Obama then used to continue bailouts for his bank donors and hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards to Wall Street executives while doing little to help millions of working-class voters being thrown out of their homes.
The betrayal prompted a working-class surge for Trump’s first presidential bid and a resurgence of right-wing populism (following a similar pattern in most countries after a financial crisis).
Many of Joe Biden’s policies actually challenged some of the worst corporate predators in the economy. So why didn’t that persuade more working-class voters to stick with Democrats?
Americans aren’t dumb — the macroeconomy may be robust, but for the nonrich, the day-to-day experience of that macroeconomy is brutal. After forty-plus years of a master plan that shredded the New Deal and the social contract, it’s become a morass of ever–increasing costs and red tape to obtain the most basic necessities of life.
For Democrats to accept the reality that Rockefeller Republican/Never Trump Republicans don’t actually exist as a significant swing voting bloc — and for them to further accept that a much larger (and growing) working-class electorate is the real swing vote — would require centering a populist economic program that offends Democrats’ big donors.
But that’s a no-go as the party is currently oriented, which explains the final self-destructive weeks of the Democrats’ 2024 campaign.
In four out of the last six presidential elections — and three of the last three — Americans have expressed their understandable anger at this reality by exercising one of the few democratic powers the public still retains: voting the incumbent party out of the White House. And this time, the incumbent was the Democratic Party.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned: “Democracy has disappeared in several other great nations, not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and government weakness through lack of leadership,” he said in a 1938 radio address. “Finally, in desperation, they chose to sacrifice liberty in the hope of getting something to eat.”
Direct your anger at the right target — the national Democratic Party, which decided to be the Cheeto lock between us and authoritarianism. Its operatives kept Biden in the race until it was too late for a contested primary, and then they made millions off losing another campaign to Trump. Channel your anger into fixing and taking over that party so this never happens again.
Encourage your family and friends to stop sealing themselves inside a bubble of corporate media and its punditry, and support left-wing media so that we can hire more reporters to do the journalism that holds power accountable.

2024-11-10 09:17:44

It's interesting. Rosenbaum's version of Lex Luthor was pretty unusual among Lex Luthors.

I've never seen the SUPERBOY series. But across Gene Hackman, John Shea, Clancy Brown, Jesse Eisenberg, Michael Rosenbaum, and that other one, the main elements of Luthor is that he is an egocentric, self-serving con artist dedicated to amassing wealth and power, who guises his confidence game in different guises.

Hackman guised his con (destroying populated areas to create real estate) in flair and costumes and not much else. He was a huckster version of Luthor.

John Shea guised his con (sabotaging federal and municipal projects so Lexcorp could 'rescue' them at a price) in an extravagant arrogance and a facade of fair play that masked a petty, bitter, vindictive, and eventually deranged personality. After Clark and the Daily Planet destroy the Luthor empire at the end of LOIS AND CLARK's first season, Luthor is reduced to a homeless madman living in a sewer with his only ambition being to marry Lois Lane even if he has to brainwash her into walking down the aisle.

Clancy Brown guised his con (technology that would defend the human race made while destroying any competition) in philanthropic futurism, a mask for how the only future Luthor cared about was his own dominance and superiority and mastery of all other life.

Jon Cryer guised his con (exploiting human racism against aliens) with a fake redemption story and extravagant charisma that eventually gives way to his only priority being his ego and his grudges.

Jesse Eisenberg guised his con (calling aliens out as threats for other heroes to destroy) in a guise of geeky, chatty analysis and humanism, but when he murders his own assistant to maneuver Batman to fight Superman, it's clear that he simply enjoys seeing people fight each other on his behalf.

Then we have Michael Rosenbaum, who noticeably played Lex instead of Luthor. Lex's character is defined for me across several scenes over the series. The first is in "Cool", where Lex tells Martha he's hosting a gathering of local farmers at the Luthor mansion to discuss investing in them. Martha and Jonathan attend and find: no other farmers are present. Lex invited only them. Lex expresses his wish to invest in the failing Kent farm so they can buy advanced farming equipment, vastly increase their harvests, for which Lex would take a profit.

Jonathan protests, saying the Kent farm is a family business that never took outside help. Lex hands Jonathan a file revealing that Hiram Kent, father to Jonathan, accepted numerous government subsidies in lean years. "Why are you so interested in our family, Lex?!" Jonathan sputters, incensed at this intrusion.

"Your son brought me back from the dead," Lex answers, sincere in his gratitude for how Clark saved Lex from a car accident and performed CPR when Lex had stopped breathing.

Lex is sincere... but note how his approach is intrusive and domineering. He lures the Kents to his home under false pretenses. He deliberately creates a situation where he has more information on them than they do on him. He establishes a position of superiority where, despite claiming he would only be an investor, his dominance is absolute. Lex is taken aback when Jonathan turns him down.

Lex doesn't know how to create a relationship of equality and trust with the Kents. He doesn't realize that, to be a friend, he should simply be present and available, rather than trying to control and maneuver them. It never occurs to him to write up his offer, send the Kents a polite letter, assure them the offer is always open, and to simply be a good buddy. He has to be in charge. But Lex can't and won't see it, and his guise of empowering investment is in fact a con -- for himself. Lex has convinced himself that he is a servant of the world when the truth is, it's simply a facade over his actual goals.

In "Lexmas", Lex declares his worldview: "What I want more than anything is to live happily ever after. And do you know what the secret to happiness is? Power. Money and power. Once you have those two things, you can secure everything else." This culminates in Lex hiring a hypnotist to engineer a breakup between Clark and Lana, followed by Lex dating Lana and engineering her alienation from all her friends, then having her injected with drugs that make her experience all the symptoms of pregnancy to induce her to marry him. Lex needs everyone in his life to be totally dependent upon him and give up all their secrets to him.

In "Descent", after killing Lionel Luthor, there is an angry confrontation between Clark and Lex. Clark accuses Lex of only caring about power and control. "This is Smallville!" Lex sputters. "Meteor freaks! Alien ships! Cryptic symbols! Someone has to protect the world!" Lex further accuses Clark, not incorrectly, of causing Jonathan Kent's death. "Why did Jonathan Kent always look so tired?" Lex says cruelly. "Was raising the perfect son really that much work?"

This is a conflation where Lex has woven lies and truth to present a self-flattering image of himself as the wronged party. But the truth is, Lex has experimented on meteor mutants to create weapons for sale and power to enrich himself. He doesn't care about protecting the world. And Lex knows that Jonathan loved Clark wholeheartedly whereas Lionel always held Lex at a distance.

We come to the endpoint of Lex's denial: he takes control of the Fortress in the Arctic and confronts Clark, declaring, "You didn't trust me with everything you had!" Lex activates a Kryptonian Orb that he believes will grant him control over Clark -- instead, it causes the Fortress to collapse with Lex inside. When we next see Lex: his body was crushed and frostbitten so badly that his face has been seared away; he's immobile in a chair; he's dependent upon cardiopulmonary bypass and a ventilator just to survive; he's using a voice synthesizer just to speak. The charisma of Michael Rosenbaum has been sheared off by ice and hate.

Lex confronts Clark and Lana and declares, "Clark Kent and Lana Lang. You've destroyed me in every possible way." Except -- it was Lex who triggered the collapse of the Fortress when Clark begged him not to and Lana wasn't even there.

Lex's self-deception is how he guises his con; he has conned himself into thinking he is the world's saviour and it's only other people who steered him to a dark path.

So, Michael Cudlitz? He's Luthor with Clancy Brown's dominating approach, with a measure of Rosenbaum's self-righteous self-deception and the attitude that nothing is ever his fault, and any fault he assigns to others must be punished. But there are none of the charismatic layers that the Cryer and Rosenbaum brought to the role, only the underlying brutality which has become the text rather the subtext.

But to be fair, this is who Lex Luthor is once you strip away the veneer of charm and intelligence. Lex is a thug.

2024-11-10 07:04:19

I can't say human behaviour makes sense to me. I would like to believe that conspiracy is the reason why Trump won the White House for the second time. But I don't see any evidence of a hack, just speculation masquerading as information.

This 2024 election denialism operates on the assumption that Democrats and their values are the default baseline of the majority of human beings. That someone predicting a Democrat win in 2024 could not possibly have been wrong.

Democratic values are my baseline, but that doesn't mean they are anyone else's.

This person's sources are random people on social media whose only actual qualification is that they tell this person what they want to hear even when that information is absurd and ridiculous, such as claiming that hacking a US election is as easy as hacking a tap to pay handheld.

Someone with such a selective bias will present such theory and assumption as evidence and facts. Such a person has lost all credibility for evaluating what sources are reliable and what sources are not. Anything that fits their denialism is plausible to them; anything contrary is untrustworthy for them.

This is the same reasoning by which they insisted that Joe Biden's debate performance was superb, that Joe Biden's underwater approval ratings were enough to win an election, that the working class is the middle class, that a close election with polls in the margin of error were in fact prelude to a Kamala victory, which culminates in claiming that Kamala won and anyone who claims otherwise is foolish or lying.

This person is not a political maven and has never had any willingness to think critically about Democrats. They have always been in denial about the faults and failings of Democrats. Their view is that Democrats couldn't possibly lose.

This person accused other Democrat voters of being Trumpists and racists because they raised concerns about Biden's polling and poor debate or didn't enjoy one speech from a black person; this person's demands for ideological purity reveals that their reasoning was based on validation, not analysis or evidence. They were angry that anyone could doubt their view that Democrats couldn't possibly lose.

This person's attitude was that personal Democratic values would triumph in elections and their Democrat standard bearers couldn't lose. This person mocked and ridiculed any doubters who dared question their certainty that Biden and Harris and Democrats couldn't possibly lose.

Democrats lost. Now this person's selectivity has them claiming it is very easy to hack an election. This is so they can hang onto their certainty that Democrats couldn't possibly lose.

These posts of election denialism, when reviewed alongside the demands for ideological purity, speak to a very rigid and inflexible mind that is open to new information, but only if it matches previous assumptions. It's one thing to be dismissive of Bernie Sanders or Al Jazeera, but anyone who thinks Joe Biden aced his debate and hacking an election is "simple, stupid, easy" is not engaged in critical thinking. They haven't been for awhile.

Sorry.

This person is not malicious or evil, just human and in pain. But we should all be old and mature enough not to believe something just because it's what we want to hear.

Perhaps there will be actual evidence that the 2024 election was hacked, but at present, there is not. Right now, the claim of 'hacking' before us comes from someone who, again, thinks exploits on point of sale access points are the same exploits to be used on a standalone, minimally-networked or non-networked and hyperdiverse array of discrete voting machines. Prying open a door with a crowbar does not make someone a safecracker.

Until there is evidence of a hack beyond someone presenting assumptions as fact, this 2024 election denlalism is, factually, no different from 9-11 trutherism or birtherism or Flat Earth believers. The motivation is progressive and earnest. But the method is conclusion first, speculation second, evidence a maybe ninth or tenth priority.

Even if it turns out the election were hacked, this person's 'reasoning' was based in a shallow, Democrats-only perception of the American electorate. I'm not saying this to hurt anyone's feelings, but misrepresenting speculation as fact has crossed into misinformation. And the pattern behind this behaviour was present even before the election.

If actual information emerges, I'll revise my views accordingly, but I will note here that the point of election denialism here is so that someone doesn't have to contemplate where they and other Democrats may have misjudged the world and the loyalties of the American voter.

I did not enjoy typing any of this. I did not enjoy criticizing someone this way, especially when that someone is on my side.

2024-11-10 05:53:12

Al Jazeera: There have been no credible allegations of election fraud or evidence of votes that disappeared during the 2024 election.

On November 6, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Director Jen Easterly said that election officials are still counting votes and reported no incidents of compromised election security.

Similarly, Ishan Mehta, director of media and democracy at Common Cause, a public advocacy group, said the 2024 election was safe, secure and “pretty smooth”.

“There is no evidence that any votes disappeared,” or of other fraudulent activity during the 2024 election, Mehta said. He also said he knew of no evidence of attempts — let alone successful efforts — to “hack” or “steal” the election.

Even if such attempts occurred, they would fail, experts said.

“There is no one ‘hack’ to change the outcome of an election or to change vote totals,” Mehta said. “Each state has its own independent, non-connected systems,” and election workers are trained to run elections and fix any issues that arise and take that responsibility seriously.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/ … -disappear

2024-11-10 05:46:29

Trump wasn't running for president to win; he assumed he wouldn't, but running delayed his cases and amassed donations for his legal bills. Even on Election Day, he was claiming the vote was rigged against him until he won.

I don't find any of the above 'strange'. Reprehensible. Immoral. Criminal. Wrong. But it isn't strange; it's depressingly human nature. People aren't against you; they're for themselves... and billionaires aren't just the individual, but their empires.

Regardless, I need you to suspend yourself from this Bboard for 48 hours. This isn't a punishment as much as a wellness response. Your posts are rapidly becoming a left-wing version of 2020 election denialism that treats the speculative as factual.

This conflation of speculation and actual information is because so much of your identity was based in ridiculing and demeaning anyone and everyone who had concerns about Democrats being able to win an election or run an effective government that could secure a mandate for another term. You derided them as foolish and absurd; the foundation of your certainty and ego was an impending Democratic victory in 2024 that did not happen.

Now you've been humiliated by your conflations of the working class and middle class and your mythic image of Joe Biden and Democrats colliding with reality. Rather than confront this, you've decided to withdraw into comforting conspiracy theory, comforting because even though it makes the outside world even darker than it already was, it permits you to avoid how all your previous posts describing the perfect invincibility of the Democratic campaign were simply wrong.

It has brought you to the point where you're presenting someone as a hacking expert when they think hacking an off-the-shelf credit card machine without detection is as easy as hacking a custom platform voting machine unnoticed. It's the equivalent of someone saying they can build a house because they once pitched a tent.

Your standard of information is no longer what's factual and verified, but whatever supports your denial.

I think you need a break... and I'm putting you on one, at least from here. I'll see you in two days.

2024-11-09 15:24:23

I don't believe any of this. Part of it: this isn't someone with evidence; it's just someone on social media looking at a displeasing result and making broad claims and assumptions without any actual proof.

Reviewing the actual plausibility of their ideas: It's technically possible to insert code into voting machines across numerous counties; it's technically possible to shift votes by 8 to 11 percent; it's technically possible to use bomb threats to interfere with recounts. But how plausible or likely is it?

Given that election systems go through extensive testing and source code reviews and certification processes with secondary paper trails, it is unlikely that this kind of malicious code could go undetected before deployment or during and after an election. A vote shift of 8 to 11 percent would be significant enough to be detectable through basic statistic results and create numerical anomalies that would cause it to be flagged. The idea that bomb threats would interfere with recounts is... incoherently convoluted. A bomb threat would bring increased scrutiny, not less.

This person furthermore claims that these hacks are "simple, stupid, easy", and that is nonsense. Such a hack is complex, demanding, and extremely challenging. Their past examples -- hacking point of sale systems -- is completely different from hacking voting machines. Point of sale systems use standard hardware and software like Windows and Linux with networked platforms and very common exploit points. Election machines use proprietary and specialized software with limited networks and often standalone operation with totally different exploits.

This hacker's claim that credit card machines are comparable to voting machines is false and absurd.

I can't claim for a fact there was no fraud. But this hacker claims that such a hack would be "simple, stupid" and "easy" and it wouldn't. They have completely generalized one area of expertise (consumer security) to an entirely different field (elections).

I guess it's fine to share these things because we should discuss them, but random people on social media offering theories as fact is not in any way factual. And certainly, anyone with a theory like this should send it off to be checked, if only to be reviewed, if only to see if there's actual evidence of it that could allow the election to be contested.

**

I don't mean to insult anyone, but theories aren't facts. Just because something is potentially true doesn't mean it is.

A theory I might offer: people sometimes gravitate to easy answers (hacking and conspiracy theory) over a more complex answer that forces them to re-examine their preconceptions and assumptions about human behaviour, that demands a more critical view of people they may have idolize, that calls for a deeper and often darker exploration of why humans might vote for progressive measures but conservative candidates.

2024-11-09 09:39:41

I want to also add: after 2016, I learned the value of being cautious in political discourse by using what I call hedging phrases, or what my sister calls weasel clauses. Every time I shared optimistic takes, I'd say that I didn't know if these perspectives were true because they might just be telling me what I wanted to hear while being flat-out wrong.

I took the same approach when buying my sister a popcorn maker, saying, "It might be okay! It might make good popcorn! It might not explode!"

"You're really taking no chances there," my sister remarked, saying that it was cowardly.

I would say that it was humble, and because I used hedging sentences throughout my posts ("I don't know if I believe this, but I hope it," "I'm scared") and in my thinking, my ego isn't shattered by an unwelcome outcome.

I never promised and guaranteed, only hoped and added a lot of outs and exits. I was prepared to be wrong. This is part of forming a sense of self that is not dependent upon outcomes to stay whole and functional.

My sister says that hedging is cowardly. I say it's humble, and it makes it easier for me when I'm wrong.

**

Tim Waltz talked about how losing is hard, and how he returns to his governorship determined and resolved.
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/08/its-ha … brief=true

2024-11-08 18:29:00

Take your time and be easy on yourself. This is an impossible situation that no Democrat ever thought they'd be staring down the barrel of once, let alone twice.

2024-11-08 18:08:14

It's flat out not true. Look, I make mistakes too.

Grizzlor has proven quite correct in saying that identity and culture politics aren't really winners in an election where most working class voters are struggling to buy food. I'm glad he said it. I'm sorry I didn't appreciate it at the time.

**

"Somehow, Palpatine returned."

The blue states are getting ready. Gavin Newsom is taking point for now. Others will follow.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/0 … e-00188493
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/0 … e-00188526

I guess I'd also want to say -- while we need to be firm in calling out falsehoods, we also need to be extra patient and kind to each other and ourselves for the next while.

2024-11-08 13:36:58

As QuinnSlidr is our friend, I took the view that he was not lying, but speaking out of grief.

As pilight is also our friend, I take the view that he is expressing a personal perspective but has left out key nuances, or is simply mistaken, as opposed to willfully conveying what is otherwise an incredible falsehood.

2024-11-08 11:39:24

Why did the voters vote for progressive initiatives on the ballot but simultaneously vote for Trump?

Salon thinks it's ignorance and a Republican-dominated media landscape. Americans' media diet consists of Republican propaganda and influencers that don't provide facts on how Trump's policies would take away minimum wage and health care.
https://www.salon.com/2024/11/08/americ … ressivism/

2024-11-08 11:20:58

I felt lots of things in my bones... that sometimes were not true. I felt SLIDERS would be back on the air by 2005; that Hillary Clinton would win in 2016; that Donald Trump would be in jail by 2021, etc..

The world doesn't always reflect what I feel. My emotions are often valid, but my prognostications are often wrong. They were wrong here. On November 5, I watched every analyst I've been following express optimism; as the night went on, they began saying there were still slim chances; by morning, they were apologizing for having gotten it so very, very wrong.

**

A certain analyst whom I'm reluctant to name or link to anymore explained his incorrect optimism: he'd seen Harris advancing in the last week of polling and ahead in early votes, he'd seen a race that was close and competitive, and he thought Harris' ground game and financial advantages would tip the scales in her favour. Unfortunately, Trump’s Election Day surge overwhelmed all advantages, reflecting a global removal of incumbent powers during a time of economic crisis. Democrats prevailed better than most world governments seeking re-election, but not enough to win.

**

The New Republic had an article on Republican media vs. non-partisan media. Republicans have effectively taken over the information space: social media, Republican news networks and television. In contrast, non-partisan, fact-oriented media and analysis has been boxed out and downsized to the point where non-partisan news has become niche and the average voter is inundated with Republican propaganda which to America at large is no longer Republican news -- it's just news.

https://newrepublic.com/post/188197/tru … dscape-fox

The only way out: Democrats need to run campaigns that demand media coverage, or they will continue to perform badly in elections. They need to facilitate the creation of a left of center media system that can compete with FOX and Twitter. This won't be easy and it won't be cheap.

2024-11-08 10:18:05

One analysis from MSNBC: Voters don't feel economically stable. The majority will vote against whichever party is in power. In 2020, that party was Republicans. In 2024, that party was Democrats. Voters who switched back and forth are searching for relief that neither party has provided, and these voters are ricocheting back and forth.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi … rcna178994

2024-11-08 09:42:50

pilight never tells me what I want to hear.

But I bow to reality. I accept that Donald Trump won the presidency again. I accept that the resistance begins again.

https://apnews.com/article/california-d … 94ed50a272

2024-11-08 09:09:35

Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election and conceded. I take no pleasure in saying that.

I also take no pleasure in saying: in your case, what it comes down to is that you have always had a certain disdainful arrogance in political discussions: rampant attacks on Slider_Quinn21, attacks on Grizzlor that went beyond anything I ever threw at him, and your justification was that President Joe Biden was a popular president who would win the 2024 election and that Vice President Kamala Harris was a popular candidate who would win the election. The namecalling, insults, the personal attacks, accusing Grizzlor of being a racist, accusing Slider_Quinn21 of being a Trump supporter -- all would be justified and validated when Biden and/or Kamala won the election.

Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election and conceded. Rather than admit that your worldview -- which is really our worldview -- has a few holes in it, you have decided to go a Trumpian route of election denialism, which you wouldn't do if we had won. This is to shore up a shattered ego and to justify the now unjustified arrogance.

Without election denialism, you would have to confront that Biden's governance didn't secure the support he needed for a second term or a successor; that Biden's team hid his verbal decline; that Democrat dependence on billionaires and corporations made them unable to speak honestly to the working class while Republicans simply lie to them; and that your arrogance was founded on a vision within the Democratic echo chamber that the outside world unfortunately didn't support.

I take no pleasure in saying that, either.

Problems are not solved by pretending they aren't there or by Democrats blaming others instead of looking at why they court middle class voters and ignore working class voters.

I certainly can't claim absolutely that there was no voter fraud, but there has been no news sourced evidence of it nor have the sitting president and vice president provided or pointed to any in order to contest the election. Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election and conceded.

It's important to grieve, but it's also to see circumstances for what they are. If there is an actual news source on voter fraud beyond repeating musings from randoms on Twitter, I hope we'll all share and discuss it, but at present, all this election denialism is grief from someone who has, in an extremely painful way, lost their foundation for their entire worldview and moral outlook and it's very hard and very sad. I'm very sorry for that.

A more productive discussion would be to concede reality and shift to how to survive a Trump election and support Democrats in midterms and the next presidential election... should there be one.

We might also start discussing the likelihood of Trump even making it through his second term. He's not healthy.

2024-11-08 00:40:28

I have no idea what you're supposed to do with your worldview, all this reads like someone having trouble with the real world failing to match the one presented in Democratic bubbles of polling and campaigning. This loss is going to be extremely destructive and probably the end of America's standing on the global stage; it's going to devastate the environment and work on climate change... but it's still not evidence of voter fraud. It's evidence of stupidity, but not conspiracy.

There is no value to a conspiracy theory where Trump somehow rigged the election with no presidential powers and left not a single trace of evidence that would allow Biden and Harris to contest the election. Denying that Democrats lost this election won't help them win the next one. Note that Trump was urgently making false accusations of voter fraud on Election Day... until he won.

If there were evidence of voter fraud, Biden and Harris would call for a recount, contest the election, and investigate it fully, and exhaust every avenue to keep Trump from fraudulently regaining power. They have not done this; there is clearly no avenue for it. These posts strike me as someone going through denial, anger, bargaining and depression.

2024-11-07 23:10:30

This all reads as someone who's in denial over Democrats being defeated because they made a lot of provocative remarks based on a confidence that wasn't borne out by reality, and they would rather claim voter fraud than consider their mental model of the world is not the actual world.

As Biden and Harris aren't contesting the election, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of the fraud, just numbers that don't match the ones in the Democratic echo chamber.

Allan Lichtman is not a pollster as much as a fortune teller. Simon Rosenberg isn't a pollster as much as an analyst. Neither seem very good at whatever it is they're doing. As for other pollsters, it's not anyone else's job but the pollster to defend their own accuracy or explain why their models don't match actual outcomes. Maybe you should ask them on Twitter and come back with their responses.

Polls and the whole Democratic bubble of publicity can create an image very different from reality. Every poll comes with a margin of error that easily makes a loss look like a win. The Democratic votes in 2020 wasn't necessarily Democratic voters, but voters who wanted an end to the chaos of the incumbent administration. The Republican vote of 2024 might not be from Republican voters, just voters who didn't feel the president was doing much or anything about inflation. Someone who voted Trump is not necessarily a Trump voter for life or even a regular voter. Someone who votes for a Democratic candidate may not vote uniformly Democrat.

The complaints about Trump are things that Democrats find offensive, but the world is unfortunately not only made up of Democrats, and to assume that someone who voted Democrat in one election is a Democrat voter for life is quite a leap.

The question of why fewer Democrat votes came in and why voters split their tickets needs to be analyzed over time to work out where Democrats went wrong, but calling it fraud would require more evidence than some glitching machines and numbers that Democrats personally don't like.

Ultimately, it's not my job to make it make sense for anyone. The outcome is displeasing, unfortunate, upsetting, exasperating and unwelcome, but denial is not a strategy. A lot of Trump voters denied losing an election in 2020, so I'm not sure why election denialism is suddenly in vogue for someone if Democrats lose.

2024-11-07 20:53:15

pilight wrote:

Very few people give a damn about those issues in the affirmative, most people don't care. They really don't care when they're struggling to put food on the table. Harris let Trump stick her the fringe issue box.

I think this is where the Democratic Party failed and where they must correct if they plan on winning an election ever again. Their cause has to be to help people get food on the table. It is really that simple.

2024-11-07 20:06:10

I think Democrats need to tailor their message to "people who work for a living", which will cross all ethnicities and gender divides and ideologies.

Search options (Page 5 of 79)

Posts found: 241 to 300 of 4,720

241 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-30 11:44:53

Re: Thoughts on Sliders in Random (183 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

242 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-28 17:03:15

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

243 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-25 00:50:21

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

244 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-24 13:19:51

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

245 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-23 19:17:01

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

246 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-23 17:17:30

Re: Smallville (136 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

247 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-22 19:03:36

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

248 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-21 20:48:11

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

249 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-20 19:14:42

Re: Smallville (136 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

250 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-20 12:56:21

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

251 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-20 09:27:47

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

252 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-20 07:15:54

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

253 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-19 22:22:41

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

254 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-19 22:13:16

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

255 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-19 18:45:47

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

256 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-19 18:38:04

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

257 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-19 18:27:28

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

258 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-19 17:48:17

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

259 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-18 17:58:32

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

260 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-18 17:56:42

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

261 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-17 18:59:57

Re: Random Thoughts about TV, Film and Media (686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

262 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-17 12:46:00

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

263 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-16 19:43:37

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

264 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-16 19:27:07

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

265 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-15 21:14:57

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

266 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-15 21:07:45

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

267 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-15 18:22:34

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

268 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-15 15:23:20

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

269 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-15 12:07:03

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

270 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-14 20:38:04

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

271 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-13 17:21:12

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

272 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-13 11:34:10

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

273 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-13 08:38:31

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

274 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-12 21:05:49

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

275 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-12 19:32:40

Re: DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) (1,683 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

276 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-12 18:58:47

Re: Smallville (136 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

277 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-12 18:19:55

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

278 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-11 18:59:07

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

279 Reply by ireactions 2024-11-11 17:34:17

Re: American Politics: Discuss and Debate (3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)