241

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

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.

243

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

244

(686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

245

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

246

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

247

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

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

249

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

250

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

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.

252

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

253

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.)

254

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

255

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

256

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

257

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

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.

259

(136 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

260

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

261

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

262

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

263

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.)

264

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

265

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

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.

267

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

268

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

269

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

270

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

271

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

272

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

273

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

274

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

275

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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/

276

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

277

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

278

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

279

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

280

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

281

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

282

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

283

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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.

284

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Ron Filipkowski from Meidas+ has some interesting post-November 5 thoughts on what wrong wrong and how to fix it.

His theory incorporates pretty much all of the above: Biden's late dropout, inflation, too short a season for Kamala to make her mark, the Afghan withdrawal, the border, Merrick Garland, cultural policing issues, Twitter, how Democrats failed to make a case for the Latino vote and the votes of non-college graduates and the working class (not the middle class)... and he notes that the Democratic Party has the talent to change that...

But only if they acknowledge and confront some hard truths and painful failures and stop living in the past.

https://www.meidasplus.com/p/what-went- … irect=true

285

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Kamala's proposals were ultimately for the middle class, for people looking to buy homes and start families and businesses, but not for people below that income line and struggling. The middle class is not the working class. And Kamala and the Democratic Party's strategy lost the election, so whatever their ideological merits, their actual gains ranged from very low to non-existent.

I'm not sure what the point is of anyone presenting the Democrats' approach as winning or successful when it was not, no matter how personally appealing it may have been to them or to me.

Anyone who doesn't think a serious strategic rethinking is needed is still living in the past before the election. And to me, anyone who is stuck in the past has no business calling anyone else nuts.

286

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The autopsy on Democrats' 2024 ambitions continues with an exploration from New York Democrats: why did the Latino vote dessert Democrats?

A consensus is emerging that national Democrats focused too little on pocketbook concerns and failed to understand the relatively conservative posture many Latinos share around social issues, public safety and a migrant crisis that has disproportionately impacted New York. It’s a critique being leveled by one of America’s leading critics of income inequality — Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who lambasted Democrats for having “abandoned working class people” after Trump’s victory.

“Not immigration, like everybody tried to pigeonhole us into, but pocketbook issues — the inflation, jobs, the economy, affordable housing — were the top issues for Latinos,” said Frankie Miranda, the federation’s president. The Democratic government’s response to immigration might actually be repelling Latino voters instead of luring them.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/0 … s-00188373

(It would be awesome if we could discuss why Democrats failed -- which they did -- as opposed to claiming they shouldn't have failed just because. Because when we confront failure, we build to success.)

287

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm going to suggest learning the difference between the working class and the middle class.

I'm also going to suggest that to reiterate Democratic strategies that lost this election is to reiterate failed strategies that don't work and don't win.

The issue isn't even Kamala, for whom Sanders campaigned. The issue is that the Democratic Party that was behind Kamala is ultimately funded by the corporations and billionaire class that drive the working class into the ground.

I'm going to suggest that the people who might consider a little silence might be the ones who have demonstrated no ability to review why their side failed and what might be done differently, who claim fraud that even the losing candidates haven't claimed, or who say that some people shouldn't be allowed to vote at all, or demanding in a now deleted post that Biden and Harris should seize autocratic power before Trump does.

I'm going to suggest that when someone's political discourse is little more than panic, petulance and denial without ideas or insight or analysis or strategy, they're in not really in a position to tell anyone to shut up.

I don't mean to say that people shouldn't express grief and sadness and anger, but demanding that failed strategies be considered successful ones and trying to silence other people's analyses and suggested strategies is neither productive nor enlightening.

But again -- there is quite a difference between working class and middle class in 2024.

288

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

If there had been a primary and Kamala lost the primary, that would simply have been the will of the Democratic voters, and not any regime throwing her aside.

During the inflation crisis -- and for most of his presidency -- Biden avoided interviews, avoided being available for constituents to ask him questions and avoided anything and everything that would have made him feel present to the people. It's pretty obvious why: his verbal communication skills had declined, he mixed up names, he mumbled, he'd freeze -- and his handlers didn't want his diminishment (superficial as it was) to be visible. They distanced him from the press... and though he could campaign for office that way.

**

Bernie Sanders says that once again, Democrats have given up on trying to win votes from working class people, instead focusing on demographics and identities.

https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/1854 … 41698?mx=2

There's definitely something there: Democrats are belittling Trump voters for choosing Trump, mocking them for caring more about the price of eggs than democracy. While voting for Trump is contemptible, the average person has been roiled by inflation, by rising food and housing costs -- and a Democratic Party that brags about having a strong economy to people who are struggling to eat is in serious trouble.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez notes that the Democratic Party is often unable to articulate specific ways to pursue working class votes because the party is unwilling to directly confront the price gouging, exploitation and misuse that corporations and billionaires inflict on the working class because party as it exists depends on so corporations and billionaires to fund it, and while Trump isn't going to change that, Trump offers forceful solutions, even they are facile or false and involve blaming minorities, while Democrats make broad and vague gestures to avoid offending their backers. The upshot is that the working class votes for the party that lies to them over the party that doesn't speak to them.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DCDRaRoxJYW/?hl=en

Vox notes that incumbent governments are being thrown out by voters struggling with the costs of food, health care and housing, pointing out: in 2020, voters were suffering from COVID and blamed the incumbent, who was Trump. In 2024, voters were suffering from inflation and blamed the incumbent, who was Biden and by extension, Trump.

https://www.vox.com/2024-elections/3832 … incumbents

Temporal Flux remarked in 2016 that a lot of people who voted for Trump didn't like or support him, but they were suffering, Democrats didn't seem to be speaking to them beyond token gestures, and that from his observation, the vote for Trump was a way to attack the entire political system that ignored them. I would offer the adjacent theory that it might be a panic button vote from people who were suffering from job losses and costs that wouldn't improve with either administration.

Andrew Yang says Democrats have failed to focus on standard of living, the working class, and alienated the majority of their base; he notes that Democrats had best abandon policing cultural behaviors. Faiz Shakir says Democrats must recruit working-class candidates who reflect people who live payday to payday.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … w-00187993

I suspect that if Democrats plan on winning any future elections, their proposals need to speak to people who work for a living or the other side will take those voters again.

289

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I think America will survive.  This isn't a fatal blow any more than Hitler was a fatal blow for Germany.  We have a very stupid and very selfish president who will sell us out to Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and others.  But he's old and will die sooner than later.  The Supreme Court will be lost for generations, but the country will survive.  The economy will be in tatters, and I assume the world will need to move to a different reserve currency with the shape the dollar will be in.

I hope you're right.

It seems to me that Biden's legacy is that he took the White House away from Trump... but then he basically gave it back. Anything Biden has accomplished will be undone.

Democrats are blaming Biden for the loss, for wasting time, for not committing to one term, for not letting a new candidate take center stage well in advance and distinguish themselves as separate from Biden, and for turning a deaf ear to inflation and the pain it was causing the working class.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/0 … n-00188092

It's a terrible situation. For four years, I had to constantly read the news in terror of what Trump had done, and now we're going to be facing an ever darker version of that.

290

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Brian, take some time to grieve. But don't let your ideals dismiss reality.

The reality I am forced to face: the people I counted on for analysis and assessment and strategy do not have what it takes to bring about a Democrat victory in today's political climate or even analyze an election correctly, and any rejoinders and protests to the contrary about qualifications and disdain for the opposing side and the electoral college are not accompanied with results. Which means you and I were ultimately presenting a losing hand.

As my archnemesis once said, you have to know when to hold them and when to fold them.

It seems to me we'd better listen long and hard to the Grizzlors and pilights of the world and better understand what it takes to win, because what we've got is not working for us.

Thank you, Grizzlor and pilight.

291

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I apologize for posting so much from Simon Rosenberg.

I wanted to believe in the vision of the world he presented... but the vision he presented isn't actual reality. I made a mistake. I trusted the wrong person. I screwed up. I wanted to believe... but what I wanted to believe in just wasn't there.

I was scared and he gave me reason not to be, which is why I shared what he had to say. But I was still scared that he could be wrong, and he was wrong, and now I feel numb.

I told you that dark days were coming. This is as dark as I feared.

I am going to take some time to think, but I am so sorry for sharing what turned out to be neither true nor reliable. I feel bad.

I'll see what this person has to say for himself, but I won't share his analyses here again. No sense in posting misinformation.

292

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Simon Rosenberg wrote:

Friends, we've been through this before in both 2016 and 2020.  It is early, votes still need to be counted, as we saw in 2020 our vote comes in late, and Harris has multiple paths to 270.  Lots of Dem vote out everywhere.  It's hard but we need to be patient.

https://x.com/SimonWDC/status/1854010462699917527

Jen O'Malley Dillon wrote:

As we have known all along, this is a razor thin race.

We have known all along that our clearest path to 270 electoral votes lies through the Blue Wall states. And we feel good about what we’re seeing.

https://x.com/jeneps/status/1854010627523551301

Simon Rosenberg wrote:

As I wrote to you today, we are likely to have significant results from only three battleground states tonight by midnight ET - GA, MI and NC.

I can understand if folks are frustrated and anxious. So much data, partial results, things moving around. Things look good, then not so good. It’s also very hard to know what is happening in any county until 100% of the votes are in. Small rural Trump counties get counted quickly. Many of our big urban counties will end up reporting late tonight which means Trump may lead most of the night in some of these states and then things will tighten up.

Folks I spoke to in the campaign and in the states today were very optimistic. Vibes were good. I remain very optimistic.

It is going to be a close election, and we may not know the outcome until Thursday or Friday.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/hopi … otes-1-its

293

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The red mirage has been a constant in elections because vote counting across rural Republican areas is faster than counting votes across heavily populated Democrat areas. This could take days.

294

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Vote counts are gradual. None of these non-results mean anything right now. Don't mistake mirages for results.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e … rcna175475

(He said fearfully.)

295

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm scared. But...

Simon Rosenberg wrote:

Friends, on this Election Day, 2024, I am optimistic we will win. Late deciders have broken to us. The campaign has seen it in their data, and we’ve seen it both in public polling and in the early vote. We are outworking them. Our ads have reached more people. Our field operations have reached more people. Our extraordinary campaign has reached more people, and will doing so today, all day. We are closing strong and winning. They are closing as ugly as it gets and losing.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/elec … ay-to-work

296

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think your account is an example of how you treat someone with welcome and consideration on a personal level but are completely opposed to them on a political level.

I do not think we will be getting results until Thursday or Friday. But if I am wrong, I owe you a trip to the Alamo Drafthouse.

297

(686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I liked the show too. I just... got lost with Season 3. I couldn't understand it.

Season 4 was more coherent and good, but I'm still very confused about year 3.

298

(3,515 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The reality is that people can have one set of values on a personal and individual basis and a completely different set of values at the ballot box. An essay I wrote awhile back about someone:

Many years ago, I interviewed an actor who was on a show I liked. This actor would, a few years after our interview, post a lot of Trump-supportive content on his social media. Following Charlottesville with neo-Nazis marching, this actor made a number of posts sharing (false) claims that the Nazi-presence and rhetoric had been overblown or misrepresented. This made me very angry.

I said nothing (well, outside of private conversations, I said nothing). I didn't comment on it in the fan community. I ceased contact and would check in on this actor from time to time, if only as a study of how someone could be radicalized.

This actor eventually scrubbed his social media of all pro-Trump material while leaving behind a few pre-2015, Trump-mocking comments regarding Trump's business practices. Because this actor took down his Trump-support and ceased voicing any support of Trump at all, I'm not willing to name him in this post.

I should note: I don't believe that anyone had to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 or Joe Biden in 2020 to make the minimum grade as a decent human being. People I respect voted third party or wrote in names because they didn't support Clinton, or because they believed in term limits when it came to Biden, or for other reasons entirely.

However, I believe that the act of voting for Donald Trump was and is evil.

I felt tremendous confusion when this actor expressed support for Trump's 2016 campaign of obvious racism, bigotry, white supremacy and white privilege. This actor had been so generous to me: a lengthy phone conversation, reviewing his quotes and offering clarifications and corrections, patient explanations of his process and work, indulgently sharing memories of times that were challenging and difficult.

He did all this for me, and I am a person of colour. I am an Asian man and I have a Muslim name (which is incredibly weird because my family has no Muslims and is Buddhist on one side and Mennonite on the other). Someone supporting a racist political party that encourages violence against anyone who isn't Caucasian -- that's not something I can ignore morally or in terms of personal safety.

Why did a Trump supporter do so much for an Asian man with a Muslim name? I had conversations with others and received a number of theories.

From my sister:
"You're not Asian enough for someone to be racist to you. Do you hear yourself on the phone? You sound white."

From my father:
"You're a banana, son. Yellow on the outside, white on the inside and people react to you like you're white. Also, as Chinese people go, you're very pale. You get white privilege." 

From my niece:
"That actor might be nice to you, but he wouldn't ever want people of colour to have any more rights -- or actual rights -- and he wants to keep your lack of privilege where it is and his white privilege where it is and he'll always vote for whatever gives white people more power to be racist."

From an intern in the social justice office:
"The dude was nice to you because he wanted to answer fan questions about his work and not have to talk about it anymore. You were someone he could use."

This twisted me inside for a long time. Eventually, I simply had to bar it from my mind. But in recent days, I've had to think about it, and I've revisited the theories that my friends and family offered me. I have then rejected these theories. I know in my heart (if not for a fact) that they are all wrong.

I have decided that he was sincerely nice to me, a person of colour, in a genuine and heartfelt way and he voted for and supported a white supremacist bigot. Both are true.

Why did he vote for Donald Trump and minimize the presence of Nazis the way Informant, a former poster here, was constantly lying and claiming there where no neo-Nazis even when they were roaring, "You will not replace us"?

A vote for Trump could be, as Grizzlor put it, tribalism, but neo-Nazi denialism goes beyond that.

I'm prepared to suggest that this actor, like Kelsey Grammer, suffered something in his life that shook him and damaged him and his sense of right and wrong when it came to the specific sphere of politics. There are actually numerous areas in his life where he may have experienced something disturbing and traumatic for which he deserves, like any person, sympathy and understanding.

Without going into detail, there was a very early setback in his education that deprived him of credentials he needed in the field of acting (don't bother trying to look this up, you won't find it). This may have caused a sense of failure and may have made it harder than it should have been to build his career, although he did build it. There may have been distress with the mother of his children not being in his life or his children's lives. I don't know that these were life-altering traumas for him. They may have been merely setbacks, but they probably weren't non-serious issues.

And then there was this actor's biggest job. The pinnacle of his career. He'd acted in small roles and acted in medium-sized roles and acting had become his full time job. Then came a role that would bring him to his largest audience yet. This role, while potentially career-defining, also came with a sense of humiliation: the actor was hired to effectively replace and imitate a different performer.

The original performer in this role was a big name who had played the character for years, but suddenly left the role. This actor I interviewed was the successor and his new job involved mimicking the original performer's performance. (I guess this gives it away)

This job must have come with the constant sense of being second-chosen, second-best, least-wanted, least-remembered, least-respected. There was the sense that the highest amount of regard for his career was when he performed in the shadow of someone else, copying someone else's work rather than offering something uniquely his own. This is an extremely caustic and mocking interpretation, and it is absolutely not how I see this person or his life or his work.

I consider this actor to a more skillful, detailed, thoughtful and talented than his predecessor, and truly a master thespian. I was impressed by how the actor's work was not imitation, but tribute where mimicry of the previous performer was just one facet of a very complex performance. And this actor could have built a successful career beyond this big role. He had the talent and physical appeal to do so, but he decided to end his acting career a short time after this job due to the need to spend more time with his family.

He left acting and found success in a different field. As a result, his former acting career was then defined by this one part where people saw him as a stand-in for somebody else; a scab, a stand-in, a substitute.

I have never and will never see him as a substitute for anybody. But it is how many others viewed him and viewed his life and viewed his work. That had to have affected him, especially when he was told by cruel fans in public that his failure to live up to his predecessor was why the show was cancelled.

These are not easy experiences.

As Dr. Frasier Crane might say: someone who experiences a sense of disenfranchisement, abandonment -- and who is treated as a shabby substitute -- could experience dire feelings of inadequacy, inferiority, weakness, and frustration that he is viewed as a second-rate copy rather than someone with his own set of experiences and skills and approach to his profession and craft.

Someone might go through this and then in their politics feel a desire for control, dominance, privilege, elevation, superiority, vindication and obedience, and this might be reflected in their voting for and supporting fascist authoritarianism and entitlement.

Someone could experience all these things and cast that vote... but still retain the ability to dismiss race and ethnicity on a personal level (like when interacting with a fan) while making racist and white supremacist choices on a political level.

One does not negate the other. Being kind to me does not erase the fact that this person cast a ballot for racism, fascism and authoritarianism. At the same time, casting that ballot did not erase the fact that this person was extremely generous to me on a personal and psychological level and, in their kindness to me, was also being kind to every other fan of his work.

This person has ceased supporting Donald Trump publicly. This means that their politics today are now a private affair as they are no longer voicing any opinion of it at all and have removed their previous opinions from their platform. For this reason, I will not name this actor nor will I associate this person with the cause from which he severed his public (if not private) allegiance. I have said nothing about this online for the past seven years because I did not want to diminish this person's standing or what he had shared with fans.

As someone who has voted for different parties at different times, I can say that there are votes for parties that I regret casting. I have made votes that, upon reflection, I consider to have been acts of evil on my part. I wouldn't want to be defined by a vote that I now regret, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

These are important subjects to discuss, and I don't feel silence serves anyone. However, I make the request that if we talk about this more, we avoid using this person's name as search engine optimization can cause associations that this person clearly no longer wants to maintain... and as this person never committed any actual crimes (none that I'm aware of, anyway), he has the right to change, to chart a new course, and to move on.

**

There are dark days ahead of you. You're all going going to be tested. And I'm so sorry for how hard it will all be.

But... I have faith in you.

299

(686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I would appreciate it if you would watch Season 3 and tell me what the hell is going on because I could not understand it.

I am super-behind and need to watch ECHO before I get to AGATHA. And I am currently knee-deep in a SMALLVILLE rewatch. But I'll get to it!