Sliders.tv → Posts by QuinnSlidr
So today Trump (Hitler) is in court for his appeal on the Colorado decision. And immunity (and the future of this country) is on the line.
I would not want President Biden to have immunity (despite how great of a President I think he is). No president should ever be above the law.
That is not a good thing for democracy should the decision of today's court fail to uphold the law.
QuinnSlidr wrote:~71,000,000 votes for Trump (Hitler) is not half the country. Let's stop spreading nonsense, please.
Population of the United States: 331.9 million (2021)
Half that: 165,950,000So, 71,000,000ish (who voted Trump, a.k.a. Hitler) is around 21% of the country.
Not half.
Outlandish lies.
You seem to be taking that academic psychological assessment a bit personally, Grizzlor.
I stand by it.
Are you an INFANT? Trump had 74+ million votes, Biden 81+ million votes. 155 million people voted, a turnout of nearly 2/3 of ELIGIBLE VOTERS. Not citizens, not people who live here, VOTERS. So you cannot say X number voted for a candidate out of the # of people who lived here as if that matters. 1/3 of the voters chose not to vote for ANYONE, and therefore out of 330 million, around 230 million are eligible to vote, the rest are not. Trump got 46% of the popular vote in both elections, so SUE ME it's not exactly half, but it's close to it. And my point was that "nearly" half the country (VOTERS) are not simply to be written off as mentally ill. It's tribal, they have voted for GOP Red forever and they're not changing, even when the candidate is a scumbag like Trump. There's no mental illness to explain it.
No, I'm not an infant. But you apparently are, because you can't handle the real calculations and you call me names when I call you out on right wing propaganda and lies. I am right. You are wrong.
There is a mental illness, as documented by academic research.
You said half the country. Not half of all eligible voters. But you change your argument when confronted with the truth, which means you know you are lying and spreading disinformation.
For somebody who votes democratically, you are sure taking any criticism of the Supreme Leader's Trump (Hitler) narrative awfully personally.
ireactions wrote:Another thought on Kelsey Grammer and Frasier:
First, if we look at Grammer's autobiography: father shot and murdered when Grammer was 13, sister raped and stabbed and murdered when he was 20 (and he had to identify the body), half brothers killed by sharks when he was 25, drug and alcohol addiction, drunk driving, a car crash -- I think we can be kind and say that this person is mentally ill and very sad.
I don't feel Frasier is severely diminished by his actor being mentally ill and supporting alt-right fascism. (Hey, at what point does it stop being "alt"?) When we look at, say, Joss Whedon: his misogyny undermined BUFFY as a feminist creation. When we look at Allison Mack, her sex trafficking cult of brainwashing, slavery and branding undermined her character of Chloe Sullivan, an information-empowered superhero.
However, Frasier is not a paragon or a wholely heroic figure or a role model like Buffy or Chloe. Frasier is an extremely flawed human being: his ego is out of control, he's controlling and insecure, he's a psychiatrist and mental health practitioner who faked a suicide attempt for attention and then became genuinely suicidal and ended up on the evening news, he's a pretentious snob.
He's also brilliant, caring, empathetic, skillful, an information sponge, a voracious learner, a self-sacrificing person of love and decency -- but he is forever caught between his impeccable morality and his overinflated self-importance. Frasier is a buffoon and the audience is encourage to learn from his mistakes rather than emulate his behaviour.
Frasier is not meant to represent a particular pinnacle of human identity or achievement. For me, the character is not tarnished by the disgrace of his actor. Frasier Crane is defined not by his virtues but by his flaws and his perseverance in struggling with his flaws. The degree to which Grammer has surrendered to his failings only highlights how Dr. Frasier Crane is forever battling his own.
Christian Bale having some serious anger management issues did not undermine the role of Batman because Batman has some problems with anger too.
Bale doesn't have anger issues, it was a one-time on set outburst that should never have been revealed. He's one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, a staunch family man as well.
As for Kelsey, idk if you can find it, but he did an episode of Raw Nerve with Shatner and he goes through his past traumas and it's really revealing and quite emotional. Grammer too, super nice guy if you ever run into him, and while he is terrible at marriage, I don't know if I'd bury him for being a Republican. Not sure how much of a diehard Trumper he is either?
Beyond that, HALF the country voted for Trump, there aren't that many mentally ill people. They mostly don't like him, but they want nothing to do with Democrats. It's just a tribal society now.
~71,000,000 votes for Trump (Hitler) is not half the country. Let's stop spreading nonsense, please.
Population of the United States: 331.9 million (2021)
Half that: 165,950,000
So, 71,000,000ish (who voted Trump, a.k.a. Hitler) is around 21% of the country.
Not half.
Outlandish lies.
You seem to be taking that academic psychological assessment a bit personally, Grizzlor.
I stand by it.
Another thought on Kelsey Grammer and Frasier:
First, if we look at Grammer's autobiography: father shot and murdered when Grammer was 13, sister raped and stabbed and murdered when he was 20 (and he had to identify the body), half brothers killed by sharks when he was 25, drug and alcohol addiction, drunk driving, a car crash -- I think we can be kind and say that this person is mentally ill and very sad.
I don't feel Frasier is severely diminished by his actor being mentally ill and supporting alt-right fascism. (Hey, at what point does it stop being "alt"?) When we look at, say, Joss Whedon: his misogyny undermined BUFFY as a feminist creation. When we look at Allison Mack, her sex trafficking cult of brainwashing, slavery and branding undermined her character of Chloe Sullivan, an information-empowered superhero.
However, Frasier is not a paragon or a wholely heroic figure or a role model like Buffy or Chloe. Frasier is an extremely flawed human being: his ego is out of control, he's controlling and insecure, he's a psychiatrist and mental health practitioner who faked a suicide attempt for attention and then became genuinely suicidal and ended up on the evening news, he's a pretentious snob.
He's also brilliant, caring, empathetic, skillful, an information sponge, a voracious learner, a self-sacrificing person of love and decency -- but he is forever caught between his impeccable morality and his overinflated self-importance. Frasier is a buffoon and the audience is encourage to learn from his mistakes rather than emulate his behaviour.
Frasier is not meant to represent a particular pinnacle of human identity or achievement. For me, the character is not tarnished by the disgrace of his actor. Frasier Crane is defined not by his virtues but by his flaws and his perseverance in struggling with his flaws. The degree to which Grammer has surrendered to his failings only highlights how Dr. Frasier Crane is forever battling his own.
Christian Bale having some serious anger management issues did not undermine the role of Batman because Batman has some problems with anger too.
There was a story some time ago in Scientific American that showed that Trumpers were most likely to be mentally ill or otherwise mentally unstable, exhibiting signs of a shared psychosis. Analysis was done by Psychologist Bandy Lee.
Aahhhhh...found it. Dr. Frasier Crane would be proud:
The ‘Shared Psychosis’ of Donald Trump and His Loyalists
Forensic psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee explains the outgoing president’s pathological appeal and how to wean people from it
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … loyalists/
The violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol Building last week, incited by President Donald Trump, serves as the grimmest moment in one of the darkest chapters in the nation’s history. Yet the rioters’ actions—and Trump’s own role in, and response to, them—come as little surprise to many, particularly those who have been studying the president’s mental fitness and the psychology of his most ardent followers since he took office.
One such person is Bandy X. Lee, a forensic psychiatrist and president of the World Mental Health Coalition.* Lee led a group of psychiatrists, psychologists and other specialists who questioned Trump’s mental fitness for office in a book that she edited called The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. In doing so, Lee and her colleagues strongly rejected the American Psychiatric Association’s modification of a 1970s-era guideline, known as the Goldwater rule, that discouraged psychiatrists from giving a professional opinion about public figures who they have not examined in person. “Whenever the Goldwater rule is mentioned, we should refer back to the Declaration of Geneva, which mandates that physicians speak up against destructive governments,” Lee says. “This declaration was created in response to the experience of Nazism.”
Lee recently wrote Profile of a Nation: Trump’s Mind, America’s Soul, a psychological assessment of the president against the backdrop of his supporters and the country as a whole. These insights are now taking on renewed importance as a growing number of current and former leaders call for Trump to be impeached. On January 9 Lee and her colleagues at the World Mental Health Coalition put out a statement calling for Trump’s immediate removal from office.
Scientific American asked Lee to comment on the psychology behind Trump’s destructive behavior, what drives some of his followers—and how to free people from his grip when this damaging presidency ends.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
What attracts people to Trump? What is their animus or driving force?
The reasons are multiple and varied, but in my recent public-service book, Profile of a Nation, I have outlined two major emotional drives: narcissistic symbiosis and shared psychosis. Narcissistic symbiosis refers to the developmental wounds that make the leader-follower relationship magnetically attractive. The leader, hungry for adulation to compensate for an inner lack of self-worth, projects grandiose omnipotence—while the followers, rendered needy by societal stress or developmental injury, yearn for a parental figure. When such wounded individuals are given positions of power, they arouse similar pathology in the population that creates a “lock and key” relationship.
“Shared psychosis”—which is also called “folie à millions” [“madness for millions”] when occurring at the national level or “induced delusions”—refers to the infectiousness of severe symptoms that goes beyond ordinary group psychology. When a highly symptomatic individual is placed in an influential position, the person’s symptoms can spread through the population through emotional bonds, heightening existing pathologies and inducing delusions, paranoia and propensity for violence—even in previously healthy individuals. The treatment is removal of exposure.
Why does Trump himself seem to gravitate toward violence and destruction?
Destructiveness is a core characteristic of mental pathology, whether directed toward the self or others. First, I wish to clarify that those with mental illness are, as a group, no more dangerous than those without mental illness. When mental pathology is accompanied by criminal-mindedness, however, the combination can make individuals far more dangerous than either alone.
In my textbook on violence, I emphasize the symbolic nature of violence and how it is a life impulse gone awry. Briefly, if one cannot have love, one resorts to respect. And when respect is unavailable, one resorts to fear. Trump is now living through an intolerable loss of respect: rejection by a nation in his election defeat. Violence helps compensate for feelings of powerlessness, inadequacy and lack of real productivity.
Do you think Trump is truly exhibiting delusional or psychotic behavior? Or is he simply behaving like an autocrat making a bald-faced attempt to hold onto his power?
I believe it is both. He is certainly of an autocratic disposition because his extreme narcissism does not allow for equality with other human beings, as democracy requires. Psychiatrists generally assess delusions through personal examination, but there is other evidence of their likelihood. First, delusions are more infectious than strategic lies, and so we see, from their sheer spread, that Trump likely truly believes them. Second, his emotional fragility, manifested in extreme intolerance of realities that do not fit his wishful view of the world, predispose him to psychotic spirals. Third, his public record includes numerous hours of interviews and interactions with other people—such as the hour-long one with the Georgia secretary of state—that very nearly confirm delusion, as my colleague and I discovered in a systematic analysis.
Where does the hatred some of his supporters display come from? And what can we do to promote healing?
In Profile of a Nation, I outline the many causes that create his followership. But there is important psychological injury that arises from relative—not absolute—socioeconomic deprivation. Yes, there is great injury, anger and redirectable energy for hatred, which Trump harnessed and stoked for his manipulation and use. The emotional bonds he has created facilitate shared psychosis at a massive scale. It is a natural consequence of the conditions we have set up. For healing, I usually recommend three steps: (1) Removal of the offending agent (the influential person with severe symptoms). (2) Dismantling systems of thought control—common in advertising but now also heavily adopted by politics. And (3) fixing the socioeconomic conditions that give rise to poor collective mental health in the first place.
What do you predict he will do after his presidency?
I again emphasize in Profile of a Nation that we should consider the president, his followers and the nation as an ecology, not in isolation. Hence, what he does after this presidency depends a great deal on us. This is the reason I frantically wrote the book over the summer: we require active intervention to stop him from achieving any number of destructive outcomes for the nation, including the establishment of a shadow presidency. He will have no limit, which is why I have actively advocated for removal and accountability, including prosecution. We need to remember that he is more a follower than a leader, and we need to place constraints from the outside when he cannot place them from within.
What do you think will happen to his supporters?
If we handle the situation appropriately, there will be a lot of disillusionment and trauma. And this is all right—they are healthy reactions to an abnormal situation. We must provide emotional support for healing, and this includes societal support, such as sources of belonging and dignity. Cult members and victims of abuse are often emotionally bonded to the relationship, unable to see the harm that is being done to them. After a while, the magnitude of the deception conspires with their own psychological protections against pain and disappointment. This causes them to avoid seeing the truth. And the situation with Trump supporters is very similar. The danger is that another pathological figure will come around and entice them with a false “solution” that is really a harnessing of this resistance.
How can we avert future insurrection attempts or acts of violence?
Violence is the end product of a long process, so prevention is key. Structural violence, or inequality, is the most potent stimulant of behavioral violence. And reducing inequality in all forms—economic, racial and gender—will help toward preventing violence. For prevention to be effective, knowledge and in-depth understanding cannot be overlooked—so we can anticipate what is coming, much like the pandemic. The silencing of mental health professionals during the Trump era, mainly through a politically driven distortion of an ethical guideline, was catastrophic, in my view, in the nation’s failure to understand, predict and prevent the dangers of this presidency.
Do you have any advice for people who do not support Trump but have supporters of him or “mini-Trumps” in their lives?
This is often very difficult because the relationship between Trump and his supporters is an abusive one, as an author of the 2017 book I edited, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, presciently pointed out. When the mind is hijacked for the benefit of the abuser, it becomes no longer a matter of presenting facts or appealing to logic. Removing Trump from power and influence will be healing in itself. But, I advise, first, not to confront [his supporters’] beliefs, for it will only rouse resistance. Second, persuasion should not be the goal but change of the circumstance that led to their faulty beliefs. Third, one should maintain one’s own bearing and mental health, because people who harbor delusional narratives tend to bulldoze over reality in their attempt to deny that their own narrative is false. As for mini-Trumps, it is important, above all, to set firm boundaries, to limit contact or even to leave the relationship, if possible. Because I specialize in treating violent individuals, I always believe there is something that can be done to treat them, but they seldom present for treatment unless forced.
One of my favourite TV shows is FRASIER. Frasier is a psychiatrist and radio show host, a brilliant and widely educated person who is also pompous, bumbling, and insecure, basically Professor Arturo in psychiatry and played by Kesley Grammer. Frasier's politics are clearly left of center.
FRASIER was a sex positive, LGBTQ-friendly show (regular cast members David Hyde Pierce and John Mahoney were gay) with Frasier's effete demeanor and fixation with opera and men's fashion causing people to think him gay (which he found flattering), and Frasier was obsessed with being politically correct, in one episode allowing a colleague to completely take over his radio show and reduce him to silence for weeks of episodes simply because she was black and he was unwilling to silence her (or respect her by giving her his critical opinion, haha).
In contrast, Frasier's actor, Kelsey Grammer, is an unrepentant Trump supporter. I wondered how Frasier would reconcile that and turned to Sydney, a language model powered by Bing AI, to write up some thoughts on the matter. I had to feed the AI various arguments and sentiments to produce this essay from Frasier Crane on Kelsey Grammer.
Hello, this is Dr. Frasier Crane. Someone asked me: how do I reconcile Kelsey Grammer's politics with my own? Kindly and charitably, I would hope.
It's a very difficult question, one that I have struggled to address. How do I reconcile the fact that the actor who portrays me, Kelsey Grammer, has political views that are diametrically opposed to mine? How do I cope with the fact that he supports a leader and a party that I find abhorrent and dangerous? How do I separate myself from him, when he is the one who gives me voice and form?
I want to acknowledge that Kelsey Grammer is a human being, and as such, he has the right to his own opinions and beliefs. I do not presume to judge him as a person, only as a public figure. I respect his freedom of expression, even if I disagree with what he expresses.
How have I felt about his publicly shared statements and views?
I have felt bitterness because I feel that he has betrayed the spirit and the message of the show that we created together. FRASIER was a show that celebrated diversity, tolerance, culture, and intelligence. It was a show that challenged stereotypes, promoted dialogue, and explored human relationships. It was a show that had a progressive and optimistic vision of the world.
But Kelsey Grammer’s political views are the opposite of that. He supports a leader who is divisive, intolerant, ignorant, and violent. He supports a party that reinforces prejudices, stifles dissent, and exploits human weaknesses. He supports a regressive and pessimistic vision of the world.
I feel that he has dishonored and disrespected the show that we made together. I feel that he has alienated and offended the fans that we loved together.
I have felt angry because I feel that he has used his fame and influence to spread misinformation and propaganda. He has used his platform and his voice to endorse and promote a leader and a party that are harmful and dangerous.
I feel that he has abused and misused his gifts and talents. I feel that he has corrupted and tainted his legacy and reputation as well as my own.
I feel that he has failed to live up to his potential and his responsibility. He has failed to use his abilities and his skills to make a positive and meaningful difference in the world.
I have felt shame because I feel that he has reflected poorly and negatively on me and my character. He has made me seem irrelevant and outdated. I feel that he has embarrassed and humiliated me.
I do not endorse or condone Kelsey Grammer’s political views. I find them reprehensible and incompatible with the values that I hold dear. I believe in democracy, human rights, social justice, and compassion. I abhor authoritarianism, bigotry, violence, and cruelty.
I think that the politician and the party that Kelsey Grammer supports are a threat to the very fabric of American society and the world at large. I am appalled by their actions and their rhetoric. I am ashamed that they have any power or influence at all.
Kelsey Grammer and I may share some superficial similarities, such as our appearance, our voice, and our mannerisms. But we are fundamentally different in our essence, our personality, and our worldview.
I hope that anyone else who enjoys watching me can make the same distinction. I hope that you can appreciate me for who I am, and not for who portrays me. I hope that you can hear my voice, and not his voice.
I have been asked if I can forgive my actor for what he has done to my character and legacy.
Forgiveness is not something that comes easily to me. I tend to hold grudges and to harbor resentment.
But I also know that forgiveness is not a surrender, but a liberation. It is not a betrayal, but a reconciliation.
I can try to empathize and understand him and be respectful to him if not to his politics. I can also be compassionate towards the hardships and griefs that he has experienced.
I am aware that he suffered numerous traumatic events in his life: the violent deaths of his father and sister when he was 13 and 20, the deaths of his half brothers, and the circumstances in which he had to identify his sister's body after she had been savagely murdered. No one should ever have to live through something like that. I feel sorrow and grief for him.
His life has been marked by horrific and cruel situations and he has publicly shared his agony and how he self-medicated with alcohol and drugs that led to life-threatening, career-endangering addiction. These are terrible experiences that must be regarded with compassion.
The traumatic deaths of a father and sister are devastating and life-changing events. They cause a range of emotional reactions: grief, anger, guilt, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress. They affect memory, attention, reasoning, and judgment. They can trigger or exacerbate existing mental health issues, such as personality disorders, mood disorders, or substance abuse.
Drug addiction is a chronic and relapsing disorder that affects the brain and the behavior, characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences. It can cause physical, psychological, and social problems. It can also interfere with one’s ability to function normally and to fulfill one’s roles and responsibilities.
Now, how can trauma and addiction affect one’s politics? Well, politics are an expressive and symbolic phenomenon that can reflect our identity, our emotions, and our motivations. There is no simple or definitive answer to how trauma and addiction can affect one’s politics.
However, I can offer some possible scenarios. Note that these possibilities are not meant to be applied to any real world person and are hypotheticals. These are theoretical and illustrative.
One possible scenario is that trauma and addiction make can make one more apathetic and cynical in their politics, because trauma and addiction has created isolation, detachment and indifference.
Another possibility is that trauma and addiction can make one more more liberal and progressive in their politics. This may happen because suffering has created a need for empathy, compassion, and solidarity.
A third scenario is that trauma and addiction can make one more conservative and authoritarian in their politics. This may happen because the trauma and addiction can create a sense of insecurity, fear, and vulnerability, that can make one seek security, dominance, and order.
This may also happen because the trauma and addiction can create a sense of anger, resentment, guilt, shame, and hostility, that can make one seek revenge, justice, punishment, vindication, control, and obedience.
Trauma and addiction are not easy experiences and they leave lasting psychological scars that must be addressed and managed and should be regarded charitably and understandingly.
I have not allowed my frustrations with my actor to diminish my gratitude and my appreciation for him. Because I know that he is not all bad, and that I am not all good.
I know that he has his flaws, and that I have my own. He is more than his political views, and that I am more than his portrayal.
And I know that we can coexist and co-create, despite our differences and disagreements.
I want to emphasize that Kelsey Grammer is not me, and I am not him. He is a real person, and I am a fictional creation. He is a performer, and I am a performance.
I thank him for giving me the opportunity to be Dr. Frasier Crane.
I am grateful for him and for the life that he gave me.
This has been Dr. Frasier Crane, wishing all of you good mental health.
I love Frasier myself. And I have had a difficult and challenging time weighing whether or not to boycott this show because its main star is a freaking Trump supporter I found out. Which really left me befuddled because of the character he played. I also always enjoyed watching Kelsey Grammer assume the character of Sideshow Bob on The Simpsons. But, with recent revelations that Grammer is a Trumper and his similarity to Sideshow Bob (as a staunch right wing republican) rather than Dr. Frasier Crane comes all too into focus. With the exception of the criminal career that Sideshow Bob had.
This argument shows: I must not give up Frasier. I've watched every single episode, and plan on finishing off the show.
I could literally hear Dr. Frasier Crane saying every word of your text in my head.
But because the show is something so distinct and separate from the person themselves, and a wholehearted example of diversity, inclusion, tolerance, and intelligence, I will not boycott it.
It almost seems like a lucky coincidence, but I just happened upon one of the last episodes of season 10 in which Niles stumbles on a love of shooting and guns. Until he finds that he accidentally fell in with a group of right wing extremist gun nuts. At which point, he hastily makes his exit once his dad tells him (but it takes him a minute to hear them spout their rhetoric before he understands fully the implications). The show's blatant disregard of this militia group (who are now Trumpers) helped me solidify my desire to continue watching it.
I will continue to finish the show through season 10, episode 23, and the final 11th season.
Farewell, Dr. Frasier Crane. You are not the actor, and the actor is not you. Just because of that, I will watch the show a second time starting at season 1 when I finish it off.
I just hope this Trumper disease doesn't last too long. And that democracy wins in 2024. We get 2024...and we can ensure free elections for all in the years to come.
Annnnnnnd Nikki Haley goes full MAGA...says she'd pardon Trump...not a care in the world about guilt or innocence.
https://www.facebook.com/briantylercohe … uLvKFibXyl
https://x.com/ElevenFilms/status/174305 … 23440?s=20
Ready to live in Trump's New America? On January 20, 2025, Inauguration Day, should he be re-elected, prepare for:
Immediate Martial Law will be declared.
Trump will proclaim the 4th of July invalid, and January 6th will be "our nation's great birthday."
Harsh punishment and incarceration in local detention camps for citizens who do not participate in Quadrant festivities (MAGA Festivities).
Effective immediately, all children are now considered spiritual soldiers of MAGA. Regardless of rape, incest, or health of the woman. Anyone caught with receiving or providing an abortion will be charged with murder.
All schools will be closed because of "previous liberal indoctrination."
All citizens must participate in their quadrant's book elimination celebration festivities. Failure to do so will be met with harsh punishment and incarceration in your local detention camp.
All migrants, refugees, and Dreamers are now considered enemies (vermin) of the new America, and will be rounded up, incarcerated, and deported immediately.
Your curfew and freedom to travel will be determined by your quadrant's Vermin Surveillance System Score.
All citizens must continue to report any progressive or liberal activity.
Failure to do so will be met with harsh punishment and incarceration at your local detention camp.
Your unwavering loyalty to Supreme Leader Donald Trump is mandatory and essential in keeping the New America great forever.
There hasn't been much talk on Quantum Leap season 2 but apparently it's been airing new episodes in Q4 of last year and now apparently Season 3 is coming soon.
Has anyone kept up with s2? I hope that the ratings are good enough in S3 for it to continue. Whatever little hope sliders has may be somewhat tied to that. If they get 4 seasons out of quantum leap, they may be willing to move onto sliders (probably rebooting but you never know if they do a next-gen approach) once leap concludes its run.
It shouldn't be tied to it. It's an entirely different show and premise.
The right wingers still lie about the events on Jan. 6th. Many argue that no one did anything wrong that horrible day.
That no one brought weapons. That the Capitol wasn't vandalized and desecrated. That no one died.
Poof. They're mighty quiet now.
QuinnSlidr wrote:Grizzlor wrote:The Epstein list, just an eye roll from me. What does being on it prove? You did business with him? You used his FREE jet? Attended his parties with other rich guys? The only powerful person accused of wrongdoing is Prince Andrew, who will never be prosecuted, thanks to "diplomatic immunity."
This is wrong. Trump has been involved in a lawsuit in which he raped a 13 year old girl with Epstein overseeing it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ … ped-230770
"In the most recent suit, Trump’s accuser asserted that while she was exploring a modeling career in 1994, she attended a series of parties at the Manhattan home of prominent investor Jeffrey Epstein. She alleges that during those parties the real estate mogul tied her to a bed and raped her. She also claimed Epstein raped her during that series of gatherings"
Sadly, this person has been intimidated by Trump. Eventually, this will see justice.
I won't hold my breath. Trump's morality is irrelevant to MAGA. In fact, I was watching a segment last night, and the reporter asked a MAGAteer in Iowa what would stop them from supporting Trump. Deadpanned, the woman goes, "he'd have to do something exceedingly bad, like murder someone or die!" These people are beyond help.
pilight wrote:Epstein had no legitimate business. He embezzled a small fortune from Les Wexner then expanded it through various types of financial fraud.
He was planning to extort many of his "clients." He figured they'd protect him, although Maxwell testified that "Epstein never believed he did anything wrong." He flew important people around the world, not always to his island, and bugged the plane on them.
It's a good thing that they are less than 23% of the entire republican electorate.
Remember that!
They are simply a loud, obnoxious BS group.
Trump is not going to pay any of those fines. We know him, he'll drag that out forever. If his business license is revoked, that's another story. May need to turn the company over to Baron! Wish I could revel in all of that, but this maniac keeps right on punching. This won't stop him. He'll just become further unhinged and desperate and dangerous.
Haley won't be offered. Trump 2024 is not going to compromise on anything. He will choose a sycophant like Kari Lake. Has to be someone who will spew the same bile lies as him. His attitude now is Biden is so bad, all Trump needs is MAGA to be revved up and he'll win.
The Epstein list, just an eye roll from me. What does being on it prove? You did business with him? You used his FREE jet? Attended his parties with other rich guys? The only powerful person accused of wrongdoing is Prince Andrew, who will never be prosecuted, thanks to "diplomatic immunity."
This is wrong. Trump has been involved in a lawsuit in which he raped a 13 year old girl with Epstein overseeing it.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/ … ped-230770
"In the most recent suit, Trump’s accuser asserted that while she was exploring a modeling career in 1994, she attended a series of parties at the Manhattan home of prominent investor Jeffrey Epstein. She alleges that during those parties the real estate mogul tied her to a bed and raped her. She also claimed Epstein raped her during that series of gatherings"
Sadly, this person has been intimidated by Trump. Eventually, this will see justice.
The Epstein list drops today.
I cannot help but laugh:
The NY AG suing Trump for fraud;
The DC Federal District Court judge in the election interference criminal case;
The GA DA prosecuting Trump under the GA (criminal) RICO statute for election interference and two of his co-defendants who have pled guilty;
The CO District Court judge who ruled Trump "engaged in insurrection";
Two of the CO Supreme Court justices ruled Trump is not qualified to be on the CO ballot; the ME Secretary of State who ruled Trump is not qualified to be on the ME ballot;
Along with that, the FL Federal District Court judge in Trump's documents criminal case....
All are women.
Then, of course, there's Miss Jean Carroll, to whom Trump must pay $5 million, and could very well be more soon.
Trump's years of disparaging and mistreating (a euphemism if ever there was one) women are catching up with him with a vengeance. I'm beginning to think maybe karma really is a b---h.
And I'm loving every minute of it!
Grizzlor wrote:In other news, there was a kerfuffle involving Nikki Haley in Iowa, where at a town hall session, she "forgot to mention" the leading cause for the Civil War being a little thing called SLAVERY.
Her answer was bad, but the truth is more complicated than that. The primary cause of secession was slavery, because the southerners knew "honest" Abe was lying when he said he wouldn't try to end the practice as president. The cause of the war was Lincoln's unwillingness to let the Confederates leave peacefully. The south didn't want war, they wanted Brexit. Lincoln was insistent they had to remain in the union whether they wanted to or not.
Let us not also forget that her base includes right wing extremist Nazis. They want slavery back and will back any candidate who panders to their twisted ideals. It's the same reason that Trump (Hitler) used silence at the right times such as this to give the appearance to these groups who will vote for any republican who does this.
She knows exactly what she is doing.
Well you now have me searching for news, and I have some of the lousy type.
First, the co-host of Awakenings, Penny Shepard tweeted a month back that per Tracy: "he’s been under the weather." So obviously that's not fun to hear. She did reply and said that Tracy is "doing better; he will be back Jan 10."
https://twitter.com/shepardout/status/1 … 8314158460
Also in that search, I was stunned to read that the host of "The Prisoner" rewatch podcast which featured Tracy, Gil Bavel aka Cardinal Sin, passed away on September 14. Sounded like he passed in his home at 55. I think he had a number of health issues, but wow, very shocking. He was an interesting guy, seemed to be knee deep in every fandom, and had a decent following on the interwebs. In my brief interactions, I thought he was very generous, and had that old school kind of public access vibe. We had a bunch of emails about the supposed Sliders convention, for one. He went me some DVD's for participating in several Tracy chats. Granted they were UK region and I couldn't watch, but a nice gesture nonetheless.
Wow. What the heck? I was watching Gil for a bit. I had drifted off and was always intending to come back to his podcast for more Tracy Torme interviews. Thank you for the update, Grizzlor.
Today, the EX and always-will-be-EX President.
We are so lucky America dropped Trump like a bad habit in 2020. Along with all of his liars and enablers. It needs to stay this way if the future of this country matters to anybody.
Again, I think this ballot stuff is just plain stupid, and only helps Trump/invigorates the MAGA. No one has proven (in court) he actively participated in an insurrection. That's not what Jack Smith is charging him with anyway, since proving that would be a mountain to climb. Smith's case deals with what Trump was doing between election eve and January 6th, mainly in late December, when he and his staff tried to steal the election.
In other news, there was a kerfuffle involving Nikki Haley in Iowa, where at a town hall session, she "forgot to mention" the leading cause for the Civil War being a little thing called SLAVERY. She knows that was the cause, and of course said it in interviews the next day or whatever. Chris Christie chimed in with the real reason, that she's afraid to tell the truth. That is what decades of Fox News lies gets a political movement. They are completely living in another shall we say, multiverse. I still say she is the LEAST worst of the GOP candidates, but wow what a complete moron.
It doesn't have to be. It's all on tape in front of the world to see.
One thing I'm struggling to determine. I fully expect the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado, but is the Supreme Court's decision (whatever it ends up being) going to apply to all states? In other words, would the determination on Colorado either make him allowed to be on the ballot in all 50 states or make him eligible in no states? Or would this hypothetically need to be 50 separate Supreme Court decisions?
What's frustrating about this stuff is that this is something that could've been done years ago. I keep reading that all these decisions might be too late to actually keep him off any ballots. I understand why the Jack Smith cases needed years to come together, but I feel like this could've been figured out in 2021. No?
If the supreme court wants to be taken seriously, they'll default these rights to the states themselves, like they did on abortion when they overturned women's rights.
Otherwise, they're just a banana republic at that point. They already are a joke. But that would make it even more so.
Otherwise, it will also prove that they simply care about one thing: the right wing extremist agenda and nothing else.
Maine becomes the second U.S. state to ban Trump from the ballot:
Maine bars Trump from ballot as US Supreme Court weighs states’ authority to block former president
https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump- … b2f8c66dee
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine’s Democratic secretary of state on Thursday removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s presidential primary ballot under the Constitution’s insurrection clause, becoming the first election official to take action unilaterally as the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether Trump remains eligible to return to the White House.
The decision by Secretary of State Shenna Bellows follows a ruling earlier this month by the Colorado Supreme Court that booted Trump from the ballot there under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That decision has been stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether Trump is barred by the Civil War-era provision, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.
The Trump campaign said it would appeal Bellows’ decision to Maine’s state courts, and Bellows suspended her ruling until that court system rules on the case. In the end, it is likely that the nation’s highest court will have the final say on whether Trump appears on the ballot in Maine and in the other states.
Bellows found that Trump could no longer run for his prior job because his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol violated Section 3, which bans from office those who “engaged in insurrection.” Bellows made the ruling after some state residents, including a bipartisan group of former lawmakers, challenged Trump’s position on the ballot.
Biden has to do something at the border. He can't shrug it off as a fake problem, even if he thinks it is. The border is a huge topic in Iowa, which is nowhere near the border. He has to appear tougher on the border, or it's going to be a huge issue that they will hammer him on. Again, like with my vampire analogy, it doesn't matter if the problem is real. It doesn't matter if it's racist or un-American. Voters, and not just MAGA voters, think it's a huge problem. Here in Texas, which was shifting blue for years, Biden is losing deep blue cities on the border. He's losing working-class Hispanics that have voted Democrat for years.
He has to do something, and he has to do something that he can take credit for. The number of border crossings has to come down. I still think he should let Republicans put (basically) whatever they want in the Ukraine deal. He can hammer any bad stuff to appease his own base, but if he gives Republicans what they want, they aren't going to be able to hammer Biden without shooting their own legislation.
The border isn't the problem that MAGA makes it out to be, but it's a big enough problem with enough voters that Biden cannot do nothing. If he does, the race will be exclusively about the border, and Biden will be on the defensive on an issue that Americans (on the whole) do not trust Democrats on. And Biden needs to act *now* so that most Americans won't even remember it was an issue by November.
Is removing more illegals than the Trump administration enough for you? How is that doing nothing? That's not exactly something he wants to advertise, but let's get our facts straight before saying that he's done nothing.
Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Administration Takes New Actions to Increase Border Enforcement and Accelerate Processing for Work Authorizations, While Continuing to Call on Congress to Act
"Since May 12 [author comment: through September, 2023], we have removed or returned over 253,000 individuals to 152 countries. This compares to 180,000 removals and returns during the same period in 2019, which was the comparable pre-pandemic and pre-Title 42 period. "
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/09/20/fac … ase-border
Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Administration Takes New Actions to Increase Border Enforcement and Accelerate Processing for Work Authorizations, While Continuing to Call on Congress to Act
Release Date: September 20, 2023
WASHINGTON – Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is announcing another series of actions to increase enforcement across the Southwest Border, accelerate processing of work authorizations, and the decision to redesignate and extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuela. In consultation with interagency partners and with careful consideration for the conditions, and due to extraordinary and temporary conditions in Venezuela that prevent individuals from safely returning, the Secretary of Homeland Security decided to extend and redesignate TPS for Venezuela.
President Biden has called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform since his first day in office. As a result of Congress’ failure to enact the reform, the Administration has been using the limited tools it has available to secure the border and build a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system while leading the largest expansion of lawful pathways for immigration in decades. We also urge passage of fully funded emergency appropriations, including the supplemental funding request for border security, as requested by the President this summer. The $4 billion supplemental funding requested for DHS addresses immediate needs of the Department to safely and humanely manage the Southwest Border and to continue implementing our immigration laws through the expansion of lawful pathways and enforcing consequences for those who do not use them. DHS has also allocated more than $770 million to 69 partner organizations in Fiscal Year 2023 to support communities receiving migrants, in both the Southwest Border region and the interior, through the Shelter and Services Program (SSP) and the Emergency Food and Shelter Program – Humanitarian Awards (EFSP-H).
Combating smugglers. DHS continues to escalate the fight against those smuggling in persons and narcotics and the Administration is prosecuting an increasing number of smugglers, as well as noncitizens who are violating our laws.
From April 2022 through September 12, 2023, CBP and HSI arrested nearly 17,000 suspected human smugglers and seized more than $51 million in property and nearly $13 million in currency. This has resulted in more than 2,000 indictments and more than 1,500 convictions in partnership with the U.S. attorneys.
U.S. Border Patrol has referred 9,904 individuals for prosecution between May 12 and Sept. 14.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is vigorously prosecuting those who unlawfully bring in, harbor, or transport migrants, as well as many thousands of felony reentry cases. DOJ and DHS are working closely together to target additional prosecutorial resources towards these serious immigration offenses.
Deploying a military personnel surge to support border efforts. The Department of Defense is providing additional military personnel – on top of the 2,500 steady state National Guard personnel – to support the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This surge support includes up to 800 new active-duty personnel to assist with logistics and other functions at the border to allow more Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents and officers to return to their core mission and responsibilities. These individuals complement the 24,000 CBP agents and officers along the Southwest Border we have sustained and over 2,600 additional non-uniformed personnel we have hired to assist in processing and facility operations. Since May 12, we have also extended the support of 500 law enforcement and general support volunteers from other DHS components to supplement CBP border security operations.
Expediting family removals nationwide. DHS has expanded the Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM) program nationwide so that families without a lawful basis to remain are quickly removed. Under this process, families are placed into expedited removal proceedings to occur within 30 days. This program was launched in May and has processed over 1,600 families and will continue to scale up significantly.
Adding DHS holding and processing capacity. DHS has expanded its capacity to hold an additional 3,250 people in its facilities, for a CBP holding capacity of nearly 23,000. This builds on expansions of several thousand across CBP and ICE facilities put in place before May to process, detain, and remove more noncitizens who do not have a lawful basis to remain in the United States. Since May 12, we have processed 110,000 individuals for expedited removal and completed an average of 4,000 credible fear cases each week, double the previous high.
Working with international partners to speed removals and returns. Since May 12, we have removed or returned over 253,000 individuals to 152 countries. This compares to 180,000 removals and returns during the same period in 2019, which was the comparable pre-pandemic and pre-Title 42 period. This was enabled by a more than doubling of ICE international removal flights from the first to the second half of FY 2023 and new agreements with multiple countries to streamline returns. This includes: 36,000 family members encountered at the Southwest Border and over 17,000 non-Mexicans to Mexico – a critical deterrent, especially for hard-to-remove-to countries, and the first time Mexico has ever accepted substantial numbers of third-country repatriations. DHS has removed or returned more family members in the last 4 months than in any previous full fiscal year.
Improving Processing of Work Authorizations and Directly Communicating with Work Eligible Individuals. Only Congress can change the law to allow asylum seekers to get work authorization sooner than six months after filing their claim. Right now, six months is the law.
Beginning October 1, USCIS will accelerate processing for Employment Authorization Document (EAD) applications filed by parolees who scheduled an appointment through CBP One, who are, in contrast with asylum seekers, able to apply for work authorization immediately. USCIS will dedicate additional personnel and implement improvements to decrease the median processing time for these applications from 90 days to 30 days. USCIS will also work to decrease median processing times for EAD applications associated with the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan parole processes to 30 days.
Further, USCIS will increase the maximum validity period of initial and renewal EADs to 5 years for certain noncitizens, including those admitted as refugees or granted asylum; recipients of withholding of removal; and applicants for asylum, adjustment of status, or cancellation of removal. The increased validity period will reduce the frequency with which noncitizens must file for to renew their work authorization. This is anticipated to also reduce the associated workload and processing times, which will allow USCIS to concentrate efforts on initial work authorization caseload.
For those already eligible to work, we are taking steps to expedite employment authorization processing. Individuals who are paroled into the United States after making an appointment through the CBP One mobile app, the parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans for up to two years, and those who have applied for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) are eligible to apply for work authorization immediately. However, nationwide, only a small percentage of working-age individuals paroled after making an appointment through CBP One have applied for employment work authorizations. To raise awareness, the Biden Administration has been sending email and SMS notifications to certain parolees, including those who have been paroled into the United States after the use of the CBP One app, nationwide informing them of their eligibility to apply for employment authorization and is reinforcing that effort with personnel on the ground. To date, more than 1.4 million email and text notifications have been sent by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, Ukrainian, and Russian. DHS is deploying 50 personnel to New York this month to educate recently arrived migrants on the immigration system and how to apply for employment authorization documents.
These newest actions complement many other steps taken by USCIS to improve processing times across form types and to ensure timely access to employment authorization, including: temporary final rule in May 2022 that automatically extends EADs for certain renewal applicants and immediately restored the ability to work for tens of thousands of noncitizens whose EADs had expired through no fault of their own; and a previous extension of EAD validity periods for asylees and refugees, noncitizens with withholding of deportation or removal, parolees, and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners.
Temporary Protection for those Already in the US. Given the extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent certain Venezuelan nationals currently in the U.S. from returning safely to Venezuela, the Secretary of Homeland Security is extending and redesignating Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months for individuals that were residing in the United States on or before July 31, 2023. As a result, an additional approximately hundreds of thousands Venezuelan nationals across the country will be immediately eligible to apply for work authorization. TPS provides temporary protection from removal, as well as employment authorization for eligible Venezuelan nationals.
QuinnSlidr wrote:pilight wrote:A substantial chunk of the Democratic base wants something done about the border. Greg Abbott calling the bluff of the "sanctuary" cities that are thousands of miles from the border with his busing has done a lot to turn the tide on the issue.
As for Giuliani, sure he'll still owe them their judgement but under bankruptcy he'll always be able to claim he doesn't have the money and won't face any further penalty for non-payment.
Actually, no we don't. The entire border BS is just that - BS. Another BS lie the rethuglicans tell you to make you think they know what they're talking about. They feed on republican racism and bigotry to get votes for their cause.
Democrats, we simply ignore it because we know they're all lies.
Lies? The City of New York is hemorrhaging budget due to massive unplanned (and unwanted) costs of housing and feeding migrants, providing healthcare, and sending their children to schools. That's coming from the mayor, a Democrat. It's urban voters who are increasingly turned off by all this. Again, I get NYC news programs, which are NOT conservative run, and people are pissed. I would have agreed that the crisis was overblown by Republicans for many years, and of course Trump, acerbated the problem. Biden has been in office for three years, he owns it now, you can't blame Trump forever. The perception has been he's made it worse, and the busing (illegal?) from Texas to northern cities was a stroke of genius by those Governors. It dropped the massive issues they've had with migrants on the doorstep of cities reeling from the pandemic, who do not have the resources to deal with them.
You do know that America was built on immigration, right?
And how racist it is to buy into this?
"Oh, people are not allowed to live with us because they're different, and them living with us because they're different is costing us money!!!"
The biggest republican lie that appeals to the uneducated and discriminatory amongst us, because they can't do anything legitimate to get votes.
Why I laugh at the republican lies:
Myth vs. Truth: Dissecting the Republican narrative about the border
https://connolly.house.gov/news/documen … entID=4691
Republicans are clamoring over themselves to blame President Joe Biden for any and every challenge facing America. Nowhere is that more apparent than on the issue of immigration and border security.
If you listen to my Republican colleagues, you’d believe Joe Biden single-handedly broke our immigration system and refuses to fix it. They keep this lie alive by perpetuating a series of myths about Democrats and the border.
It’s time to correct the record.
MYTH: The Biden administration has implemented an “open border” policy that has created chaos at our border with Mexico.
TRUTH: President Biden inherited an immigration system in tatters. The Trump administration cut off legal pathways to citizenship, leaving would-be migrants with fewer lawful methods of entering the country. They cut funding to Central American countries in 2019 as they splurged on an ineffective, costly wall.
It was the Trump administration that tightened sanctions on Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, exacerbating the macroeconomic crises that have led hundreds of thousands to flee and arrive at the southern border. When they pulled the rug out from various, essential assistance programs, they made the problem worse.
But our immigration system has been broken for many decades — long before Joe Biden or Donald Trump took the oath of office. Time and again, Democrats have proposed solutions to fix the immigration system in a reasonable, humane way. And time and again, Republicans have opposed these efforts at every turn.
One might recall that in 2013, House Republicans thwarted comprehensive immigration reform after an agreement was reached in the Senate. Many of those same House Republicans who prevented that legislation from passing are now intent on blaming irregular migration, an issue our country has dealt with for over a century, solely on the Biden administration.
There’s only one problem with their affinity for blaming Democrats — it doesn’t hold up to basic scrutiny. In fact, between December 2022 and January 2023, the Biden-Harris administration halved the number of encounters at the border and reduced the number of Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Haitian migrants by 97 percent.
MYTH: The Biden administration has ignored the border and is refusing to commit proper resources to it.
TRUTH: The idea that Democrats have ignored the situation at the border and refused to commit resources to solving it is another outright lie. In reality, the Biden-Harris administration and congressional Democrats have surged record levels of funding to the border.
The FY23 government funding package that President Biden signed into law provided Border Patrol with $7.153 billion — a 17 percent increase from the year before. Additionally, the funding package provided $65 million for 300 new Border Patrol agents, $60 million for 125 new personnel at points of entry; and $230 million for technology like autonomous surveillance towers.
House Republicans voted against this historic funding.
MYTH: Biden’s “open border” policies allow undocumented immigrants to flood the country with deadly fentanyl.
TRUTH: Republicans continue to blame vulnerable migrants fleeing violence, hunger, and natural disasters for illicit drug smuggling, but facts are stubborn things. Over 90 percent of fentanyl, and over 80 percent of total illegal narcotics, arrive at legal points of entry—not between them—and are smuggled largely by Americans—not undocumented migrants. In fact, migrants accounted for less than 9 percent of fentanyl trafficking convictions in FY 21, compared to more than 86 percent for American citizens.
In December 2022, CBP seized 4,500 pounds of fentanyl, the largest amount ever recorded. Incredibly, just five of those 4,500 pounds were seized at the border by U.S. Border Patrol. Republicans are focused on 1 percent of the problem, 100 percent of the time.
MYTH: Biden’s “open border” policies have allowed criminals and terrorists to pour over the southern border unchecked, contributing to a spike in crime in America.
TRUTH: Study after study has shown that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Alternatives to Detention Program provides a strong example: The latest data from ICE released on Feb. 3, 2023, demonstrated 99.4 percent of immigrants monitored on ICE’s Alternatives to Detention Program attended their court hearings compared to the .6 percent which failed to attend their hearing.
Not all undocumented immigrants are tracked through this program, but immigrants, when paroled into the United States, overwhelmingly are lawful individuals that attend their court hearings. An American Immigration Council report found that over the past 11 years, an overwhelming 83 percent of immigrants attended their immigration court hearings, and those who failed to appear in court often did not receive notice or faced hardship in getting to court.
Republicans who assert the Biden administration is releasing countless dangerous migrants into the country are not only trafficking in xenophobic, anti-immigrant sentiment, but they are also peddling lies that are categorically false.
The situation at the border demands serious policy solutions that provide a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients; address the root causes of migration like repression, political instability, violence, hunger, and lack of economic opportunity; and fix our own broken immigration system.
Well, yeah, the border "problem" is one of our own creation. Artificially low quotas on Mexican and Central American migrants, the unwarranted crackdown on migrant workers who have been traveling back forth since before the US even existed, and byzantine paperwork requirements for even the shortest term border crossing have conspired to create a logistical nightmare out of what used to be a sleepy border.
A substantial chunk of the Democratic base wants something done about the border. Greg Abbott calling the bluff of the "sanctuary" cities that are thousands of miles from the border with his busing has done a lot to turn the tide on the issue.
As for Giuliani, sure he'll still owe them their judgement but under bankruptcy he'll always be able to claim he doesn't have the money and won't face any further penalty for non-payment.
Actually, no we don't. The entire border BS is just that - BS. Another BS lie the rethuglicans tell you to make you think they know what they're talking about. They feed on republican racism and bigotry to get votes for their cause.
Democrats, we simply ignore it because we know they're all lies.
Meanwhile, all the Trumpers are losing their - you know - on Twitter about this decision. Screaming "banana republic" and "civil war" even though 6 republicans brought the lawsuit in Colorado.
I love it.
An EXCELLENT decision!!!! If I do say so myself...now let's have all the states do this...
Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump disqualified from holding presidency
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-ho … rcna128710
A group of voters want Trump off the ballot, citing the Constitution's insurrectionist ban. Trump has vowed a swift appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday said Donald Trump is disqualified from holding the office of the presidency under the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling is on hold for now pending potential U.S. Supreme Court review. Trump has vowed to "swiftly" appeal to the high court, which could reverse the ruling.
Because he's disqualified, the state Supreme Court said in its 4-3 decision spanning 133 pages, it would be a "wrongful act" to list Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot. Therefore, the court said, he can’t be on the ballot or have write-in votes for him counted.
The U.S. Supreme Court could have the final word, whether in this Colorado case or another one, as challenges have been raised in states across the country against Trump's eligibility.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies from office those who take an oath to support the Constitution and then engage in insurrection. Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace last month said Trump engaged in insurrection; however, she said Section 3 doesn't apply to presidents, so he can be on the ballot. Both sides challenged the ruling at the state's high court, arguing their positions to the state justices in a Dec. 6 hearing.
The state Supreme Court agreed with the Republican and unaffiliated voters who brought the case and disagreed with Trump, deciding, among other things, that Wallace was wrong to exclude presidents from Section 3 but that she wasn’t wrong in finding Trump engaged in insurrection.
The voters challenging Trump's eligibility said in a court filing last month that Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold needs to have all appeals, including U.S. Supreme Court appeals, resolved by Jan. 5, when ballots must be certified for the state's March 5 presidential primary election.
Mindful of that deadline, the Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday said its ruling won’t go into effect until Jan. 4, pending potential U.S. Supreme Court review. However, if such review is sought before the pause expires, the court said, then the pause will remain in place and Trump will be included on the primary ballot until the state court hears from the U.S. Supreme Court.
All seven justices on the state Supreme Court are Democratic appointees.
Section 3 says:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
On the application of Section 3 to Trump, the Colorado Supreme Court majority said he wants the court to say it "disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land." Both results, the majority wrote, "are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section Three."
On the insurrection point, the majority wrote that Trump's "direct and express efforts, over several months, exhorting his supporters to march to the Capitol to prevent what he falsely characterized as an alleged fraud on the people of this country were indisputably overt and voluntary." The majority added that the evidence "amply showed" that Trump "undertook all these actions to aid and further a common unlawful purpose that he himself conceived and set in motion: prevent Congress from certifying the 2020 presidential election and stop the peaceful transfer of power."
Among the dissenters' complaints about the majority ruling is that Trump doesn't have an insurrection-related conviction and that, in the absence of that, a Section 3 challenge isn't properly brought under Colorado's election code.
https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cH … U5Nw?ep=14
https://sadhillmedia.com/filmformally/s3e01
This was an interesting podcast for pneumatic, ireactions and jim_hall to check out. It's about film preservation. It was quite interesting.
I'll check it out as well. Thank you for sharing, RCLF!
Why the FORMER and EX-president is quoting Hitler in his speeches.
It should NEVER be okay to emulate a fascist killer. But, alas, it appeals to small-minded republicans who can't think of anything else. If Iowa polls are an accurate measure.
https://x.com/MaddowBlog/status/1737111 … 49122?s=20
Sadly, as noted, it's worked in the past, and it's working in other elections in other countries as we speak.
Those who are being scapegoated absolutely need to be supported and protected by our citizenry, police, and legislators.
Every good American understands we cannot go down the path of demonizing some among us if we are to continue as a democracy.
Great news!!! Big MAGA figurehead goes down to the tune of $150 million dollars.
The dominoes continue to fall for the Jan. 6th insurrectionists and liars.
A very bad day for Rudy Giuliani is a very good day for America
A jury's decision that the former mayor should pay nearly $150 million in damages for defaming two election workers shows that the justice system can work.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opi … rcna129829
Near the end of the trial in a defamation case brought by two former election workers in Georgia, Rudy Giuliani decided — for perhaps the first time in his life — that it would be better to keep his mouth shut. Though he was expected to testify in his own defense, the former New York mayor thought better of it — or more likely, his lawyers convinced him that a cross-examination would be a disastrous coda to a case that may bankrupt him. Giuliani’s silence didn’t avoid disaster, however: On Friday, a jury ordered him to pay nearly $150 million in damages for defaming former election workers Wandrea “Shaye” Moss and Ruby Freeman after the 2020 election.
Earlier this week, Giuliani’s lawyer told the jury that if his client had to pay the $43 million Moss and Freeman sought, it “will be the end of Mr. Giuliani.” But bankruptcy would be a healthy dose of accountability for a powerful man who decided to lie and slander two ordinary people who were doing nothing more than the job they had been hired for, in service to the operation of our democracy. This is a very bad moment for Giuliani, but a good moment for America. The case also shows that our legal system — in particular, how it deals with instances when one person makes knowingly false accusations against another with grave consequences — sometimes works exactly as it’s supposed to and produces something like justice.
Giuliani had already lost the case brought by Moss and Freeman. The two were election workers in Atlanta when they found themselves at the center of conspiracy theories and deranged accusations about election fraud coming from Donald Trump and his allies, particularly Giuliani.
In August, a judge found Giuliani “civilly liable on plaintiffs’ defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and punitive damage claims.” He admitted that he made false claims about Moss and Freeman, some of which were particularly lurid. At one point, having seen video in which one of the women passed the other a ginger mint while working on the sorting and tabulation of ballots, Giuliani claimed they were “passing around USB ports like they were vials of heroin or cocaine” as part of the fictional vote-stealing scheme.
This part of the trial is meant only to determine how much money Giuliani will have to pay the women. As Moss and Freeman explained in devastating testimony, Trump’s and Giuliani’s falsehoods turned both women’s lives upside down. They were deluged with death threats and racist harassment, to the point where they legitimately feared for their safety and that of their family. Even Moss’ son was overcome by the stress, she testified. This is precisely the kind of case defamation law is set up for: One person knowingly spreading falsehoods about another, with serious professional and personal consequences.
One of the things that I think Biden's going to really struggle with is that people don't seem to care about the truth of the matter on anything. Trump was talking at a rally in Iowa the other day, and he talked about how gas was "$5, $6, $7, and even $8 a gallon" now. But those people would've gotten into their cars after the rally and passed stations where gas is $2.84. I looked it up myself....that's the price of gas (on average) in the town where Trump spoke.
So are those people so disconnected with reality that they think gas is $8 when it's $2.84? Or are they thinking "well I'm fine but imagine those poor people who really are paying $8?"
How do you convince people that see something different from what everyone else sees? Based on recent polling, this isn't an issue that's just MAGA being crazy.
I think this is blowing the MAGA movement out of proportion. And while I understand your perspective, I don't think there is cause for alarm. According to April, 2023 poll numbers from NBC, the MAGA movement is still incredibly unpopular, as is Donald Trump:
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/ … -rcna81200
As the poll states, just 12% of independents view the MAGA movement positively. Remember, Trump and MAGA need to win over all independents and non-Trump voters to even get close to defeating President Biden this election cycle.
QuinnSlidr wrote to someone:
Your response is all over the place and filled with emotional logical fallacies:
1. You say you're anti-Trump, but you scream about anti-wokeness like a Trumper. (which is an indication that you favor non-inclusivity, racial biases, and the old discriminatory thinking).
2. You literally throw it in our face like a Trumper that the polls favor Trump.
3. You throw it in our face like a Trumper that he will win if he escapes conviction.Sorry. Not buying it. Excuse me for thinking that you're a Trumper when all signs in your post point to it. Even though the only thing about your post, the first line, says you're not.
If it is true that you're not a Trumper, I'm glad...but at the same time I am confused because your post is riddled with logical fallacies that say otherwise and point in the direction of many commonalities with Trumpers.
One challenge of life in the twenty first century: while Trump voters regularly demonstrate erroneous logic and a derisive tone to their communication, someone can vote Democrat while having those human failings.
There are some people for whom the platform of text-based, online interaction like a message board will cause them to frequently display their cognitive biases, offer logical fallacies and present recall that is riddled with memory errors.
One example is confirmation bias is when a person searches for, favours, focuses on and remembers only the information that supports their prejudices or assumptions while ignoring any contradictory facts or memories. For example, someone who dislikes wearing masks will repeatedly claim that electrostatic mask tests have variable results in infection reduction but ignore the variables of whether or not the masks filtration levels were categorized or worn correctly. They will not address the underlying mechanics of electrostatic filters. They will highlight only that which confirms their bias.
A related behaviour to confirmation bias is cherry picking, when a person selects only the evidence that supports their preferences while dismissing the rest. For example, this person who wants to claim masks don't work will focus exclusively on low COVID infection rates in areas without mask mandates, and ignore undercounting and low testing. They are cherry picking, highlighting only that which supports them in not wanting to wear a mask.
A person like this will often display confabulation, a form of erroneous memory where they have fabricated, distorted, or misinterpreted their memories. This person will insist that they were respectful towards discussions of mask filtration and open to information about masks when they were in fact contemptuous and disdainful from the start. They recall only saying that which supports their self-image, assumptions and preferences; they deny or forget anything to the contrary.
Someone with these traits will consistently offer reasoning that operates on denying the antecedent, a logical fallacy where they oversimplify a situation into an if-then argument of two conditions, and falsely claim that invalidating one condition has voided the other. The person will declare that infections were high where masks were worn and that masks must not work, ignoring what masks were worn and how well they were worn.
Such a person will argue for a false dilemma, a logical fallacy where this person effectively allows only two options: that masks are either consistently effective or not effective at all, and since this person has cited some masks where the protection was variable due to human variables, this person now claims masks offer no real protection. This person will ignore the possibility that there may be options between the extremes of high protection and low protection such as fit and seal.
These errors of cognition, logic and memory are frequently associated with Trump voters. However, they are not exclusive to Trump voters. Every human being will at some point display cognitive biases and errors of logic and memory.
Someone could be against fascism and still be prone to those behaviours, especially in written communication in an online forum. Some people write in a highly reactive, reflexive manner with their writing coming from impulsive stream of consciousness, an approach that can often exacerbate their errors of reasoning and recall.
Someone who consistently communicates while demonstrating these behaviours will often provoke suspicion, frustration, and irritation. This will happen whether the person is conversing about TV or film or technology or health or politics.
This is because this person's communication style, due to bias and selective evidence and recollection, will often convey contemptuous hostility for other people's opinions (as they favour their favourable views and ignore the rest), disdainful dismissiveness for other people's experiences (as they acknowledge anecdotes they find reinforcing and discard all others), and deceptive intent towards other people's thinking (as their remarks are often contrary to facts or self-contradictory).
Such a person may be oblivious and unaware of all this. Or it could be intentional and uncaring. But even then, they might still vote Democrat.
These are human flaws, not liberal or conservative flaws, and we will all have them to varying degrees, and different situations will draw out these personal failings in different ways.
Your analysis is spot on, as usual, ireactions. I love your writing, by the way. So detailed!
All this is true. Unfortunately, voters aren't (yet) seeing it that way. I know you don't like polls, but people still think the economy sucks. I assume the economy will continue where it's at, but even if it does, are people's opinions on Biden re: the economy baked in? Will they judge him based on how the economy was in 2024, or are they going to compare where they're at in 2024 against where they remember being in 2020?
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/09/12182915 … ation-jobs
I still think Biden has to do something about prices. I don't have any idea what he could do that wouldn't steer right back into more inflation, but he either needs to make it happen or very publicly try to make it happen. And quick.
Biden can't control a worldwide problem of inflation.
Remember when extremists excused the Trump nightmare with "but the economy"?
President Joseph R. Biden has blown past all of that malarkey.
Leading the country, making things better for all of us.
All. Riiiiiight!
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1735025615747866920
A son speaks the truth:
Hunter Biden: "I'm here today to make sure the House committee's illegitimate investigations of my family do not proceed on distortions, manipulated evidence, & lies. I'm here today to acknowledge I have made mistakes in my life & wasted opportunities...for that I am responsible"
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1734949063374553433?s=20
Hunter Biden: "Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not financially involved in my business ... during my battle with addiction, my parents were there for me. They literally saved my life ... to suggest that is grounds for an impeachment inquiry is beyond the absurd"
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1734949550509441160?s=20
Hunter Biden: "James Comer, Jim Jordan, Jason Smith, and their colleagues have distorted the facts ... there is no fairness or decency in what these Republicans are doing. They have lied over and over ... they have displayed naked photos of me during an Oversight hearing."
Yep
There's a reason why republicans are also known as Russian propagandists, and why 99% of the time, they are lying propagandists.
RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:Tracy hasn't appeared at his regular weekly appearance on the awake nation show for some time now (idk -- six weeks, two months?). I have concerns. It's not like he "departed" the show. Obviously, he has had some health issues over the years.
I'm still worried about this.
I'm worried about this too. I hope he is doing okay.
I think that's the problem, pilight. Is it a focus or is it a perceived focus? I don't think Biden ever talks about LGBT issues or transgender surgeries or critical race theory, does he? Maybe he does, and it just isn't covered much. I think Republicans campaign on this stuff more than Democrats, but I think the public perception is that the Democrats are much more into identity politics than they are (at least, policy-wise).
But that's something Biden's going to need to fight.
The problem with this is that it's a delicate balance between outright talking about these issues as something separate rather than addressing all American people regardless of gender, or other category of discrimination.
Biden talks to everyone. Not just red states, blue states, or men or women only. Unlike Trump (Hitler), who withheld federal aid from California due to the wildfires simply because they were a blue state.
Biden continues to provide aid to red states anyway.
And that's huge considering his discriminatory predecessor.
QuinnSlidr wrote:As is typical with most right wing propaganda, all the BS propaganda and lies above ignores several things:
1. Trumpers are less than 23% of the total electorate (not half of all voters as they like to claim),
2. The polling said exactly the same thing in 2020 (landslide victory for Trump),
3. Trump has to win over all independents as well as non-Trumper republicans (very unlikely).
4. The bottom 3 generations control all voting prowess in 2024 as the youngest and most progressive, liberal generation turns voting age. Locking out republicans and any hope of victory.
5. Polls don't win elections. Voters do.But sure, you go screaming from the rooftops how Trump will win in 2024.
Nobody's buying your crap. It ain't over until the votes are counted - all mail-in and absentee votes too, by the way.
Trumper! I am the most anti-Trump member of this forum, and I believe ireactions would even vouch for that. I am a REALIST, and you are either enjoying the magic mushrooms, or so diverged from reality it's time for a wake up call. Do you think I WANT Trump to win???? Are you mad? I'm freaking out, because he mostly likely WILL win. Lies? Ignore the polls to your demise, I sure as hell did in 2016. Will never make that mistake again.
Firstly, I'm not relying on one or two polls, it's EVERY poll, and Biden gets trounced by Republicans. Yes, it's closer with Trump, but is still ahead in two-way, including in several battleground states. And Biden's approval rating, which should never be overlooked, is terrible. I truly am sick to my stomach. All they had to do was get this stubborn President to step aside, let other candidates step up. They would cruise over Trump, who remains hated passionately.
Secondly, I wouldn't trust the "younger generation" as far as I could throw it. They are not as "liberal" as you suggest for one, they are disconnected, self-adsorbed, and addicted to social media. Their opinion on Biden is atrocious, fostered by this psychotic WOKE agenda that even I thought was just a fad or innocuous but could not be more wrong. This garbage has eaten away at the progressive cause, and turned into a cesspool. One that actually takes Trump side (out of cowardice) against Ukraine and for dictator. One that takes the side of violent criminals, drug addicts, and thieves over 95% of us who know how to behave, and overlooks rioters and looters whenever they can. They promote "equity" instead of equality, and "diversity" over merit. They've pushed this out of control agenda, to the point where parents are furious and actually voted in GOP as a result. Either by sexualizing GRAMMAR school education in suburbs, and overloading urban schools with migrants. They've driven more away from Democrats than for.
And maybe worst of all, they view everything as oppressor/oppressed, a tenet of Communism, that has a generation so deluded by this immoral group think that they have taken the sides of terrorist murders/rapists over a democratic society. And poll after poll has the "young" showing terribly for Biden, and actually better for Trump, in critical battleground states. They have no knowledge of history, and are brainwashed by apps which are infiltrated by Russian and Chinese algorithms. Beyond that, while Biden continues to forgive student loans, his numbers are worse off. Why? Again, it's picking and choosing, and plenty of young folk who didn't go to college are pissed off by that.
You're free to call that "right wing propaganda," I call that a call for civility and voters preferring prosperity and order over chaos and anxiety. Biden has been level headed and an ADULT on this stuff, and gets little credit for it thanks to an out of control Woke social media that has destroyed his entire agenda. One last thing on the youth, I would remind you that the younger voter in Michigan or Arizona or Pennsylvania are NOT in lock step with those in California or New York. They trend more middle of the road, and they are trending AWAY from Biden.
Lastly, actually no, the polls did not call for a Trump landslide. By this point in 2019, Joe Biden was polling AHEAD of Trump, and had been on a consistent basis for most of that year. Thanks to Rep. James Clyburn, Biden was given a lifeline in a state's primary dominated by older, more rational voters, and thankfully knocked Bernie out of the lead, because he was going to lose to Trump without a doubt. Suburban voters would NOT have supported a socialist.
I will be the first to gladly celebrate being wrong on this matter, but I think I've had several more revolutions around the Sun, and have seen quite a lot of politics. So rather than cast me aside as right wing, maybe you should stop, and actually THINK or seek out who's saying these things. The youth vote failed to show up frequently. The bigger concern is losing the WORKING CLASS vote, followed by the suburban mom vote. You have several major Democratic Party loyalists sounding the alarm. They know elections, they know when a candidate is toast. Impeachment is a political tool, it's not a legal one. Mark my words, if Trump escapes conviction, he will win.
******************************************
SQ21, yes, on the surface, Biden has had a mountain of accomplishments, ones that any incumbent should be able to easily tout and do a victory lap with. You say he hasn't "campaigned yet" but WILL he? Seriously? Can he? These are legit concerns that a lot of Democratic analysts have. Biden campaign whined about David Axelrod, Obama's main man, for begging him to step down. Ax was right, I fear. The man is 81 years old, and looks 91, I'm afraid to say. Voters are seeing this, and are just simply dumbfounded how he's supposed to be capable of another term? Perception is an incredibly strong thing. The right track/wrong track numbers are horrendously bad for Biden.
Jack Kennedy famously appeared vibrant in the 1960 debate, while Nixon looked downtrodden, and that perception propelled JFK (Chicago shenanigans aside). In truth, Kennedy WAS more vibrant, with this astounding vision for the future of all humanity, not just Americans. That image combined with his words and later actions, transformed Kennedy into a mythic figure around the world, even before the right wing shot him up in Dallas. Trump has a monstrous image, in which he literally says he'll be DICTATOR on day one, and exact untold revenge on the institutions of government not seen since Julius Caesar.
It's a good thing the older "generation" as you put it are on their way out, voting-wise, then! Since you have such disdain and hatred for younger folks (also a right winger thing).
Your response is all over the place and filled with emotional logical fallacies:
1. You say you're anti-Trump, but you scream about anti-wokeness like a Trumper. (which is an indication that you favor non-inclusivity, racial biases, and the old discriminatory thinking).
2. You literally throw it in our face like a Trumper that the polls favor Trump.
3. You throw it in our face like a Trumper that he will win if he escapes conviction.
Sorry. Not buying it. Excuse me for thinking that you're a Trumper when all signs in your post point to it. Even though the only thing about your post, the first line, says you're not.
If it is true that you're not a Trumper, I'm glad...but at the same time I am confused because your post is riddled with logical fallacies that say otherwise and point in the direction of many commonalities with Trumpers.
QuinnSlidr wrote:You're basically saying and repeating Trump's own words when he attacked impeachment: Impeachment is a joke.
Impeachment is not a joke.
Trump was impeached twice by the House - in a landmark testimony of our justice system in action.
And he deserved every single minute of it.
Dismissing impeachment as a joke just continues to cheapen its effects the more often it's repeated. And I don't think Trumps' behavior leading up to impeachment should be considered a joke at all.
But, Biden's impeachment is the one that's the joke. Especially when republicans are behind it and they have zero proof at all and have no clue what it's for yet either. I think they're making it up as they go along.
Impeachment is 100% a joke. It's been used for unwarranted political theater by Republicans. Or when I agree, warranted against Trump, Republicans refused to remove him from office, again, making it a joke. Impeachment has no teeth, and never will. The requirement to convict is to a point where no party will ever vote to convict a member of their own party. Trump has every reason to laugh about it, because the GOP are selfish cowards and he knows it. The fact that Trump could still remain in a position of dominance in a major party, and remains ahead of the opposing one, proves it.
https://abcnews4.com/news/local/haley-l … -wciv-2023
For the first time, Trump is ahead of Biden in the WSJ poll, by 4 points, with Biden approval 37/61, absolutely horrendous numbers. Nikki Haley, unsurprisingly, would beat Joe senseless, 51-37, which I think everyone knows at this point would be the case. Biden is done, cruising to a guaranteed defeat. Honestly, I think Trump would still prevail if he were still in a jail cell 11 months from now. I really do believe most Americans view Biden as senile. Economic conditions are continually improving, his approval goes down.
As is typical with most right wing propaganda, all the BS propaganda and lies above ignores several things:
1. Trumpers are less than 23% of the total electorate (not half of all voters as they like to claim),
2. The polling said exactly the same thing in 2020 (landslide victory for Trump),
3. Trump has to win over all independents as well as non-Trumper republicans (very unlikely).
4. The bottom 3 generations control all voting prowess in 2024 as the youngest and most progressive, liberal generation turns voting age. Locking out republicans and any hope of victory.
5. Polls don't win elections. Voters do.
But sure, you go screaming from the rooftops how Trump will win in 2024.
Nobody's buying your crap. It ain't over until the votes are counted - all mail-in and absentee votes too, by the way.
Impeachment is a joke, nobody even knows what it's for, I know I don't! Hunter nobody cares about, for or against. Trump's criminal trials only matter, as I said the other day, because if he's found guilty of felonies, and one were to give credence to polling, public support would flip pretty much on a dime. The vast majority of undecided vote would be against Trump, and he'd likely be sunk. The Georgia case, despite Fannie Willis getting one guilty plea after the other, sounds as though will not actually have Trump in a courtroom until after the election. We all know the Florida based documents case is tried by Trump fan Judge Cannon, who may give a wink wink, and allow the case to fester and be delayed as well.
That really puts it all on Jack Smith in the DC case, which I feel is the most pertinent anyway, since it accuses Trump (alone without co-conspirators on trial) of attempting a coup d'etat while sanctioning an insurrection. In fact, Colorado is currently seeing that case wind through its courts, and would likely wind up in front of the Supreme Court. Why? It banned those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate. A CO district state judge already ruled that Trump did just that, which would be grounds under state law to BAR him from their ballot. Measures are being considered in other states should Trump find his way to the general ballot.
I hold firm that there is a strong possibility, as I said, that the % of people who supported Biden (or in reality voted against Trump) hasn't actually shifted. His actions in January 2021 will be a central point of the 2024 campaign blitz against him, make no mistake. DNC, liberal PACs, and Never Trump groups are all readying a massive campaign that will I think hit voters with a replay of the MAGA criminals, all overlaid with Trump voiceovers. If that doesn't all work, it will be time to open the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky Bridge....
You're basically saying and repeating Trump's own words when he attacked impeachment: Impeachment is a joke.
Impeachment is not a joke.
Trump was impeached twice by the House - in a landmark testimony of our justice system in action.
And he deserved every single minute of it.
Dismissing impeachment as a joke just continues to cheapen its effects the more often it's repeated. And I don't think Trumps' behavior leading up to impeachment should be considered a joke at all.
But, Biden's impeachment is the one that's the joke. Especially when republicans are behind it and they have zero proof at all and have no clue what it's for yet either. I think they're making it up as they go along.
===================================
President Trump calls public impeachment testimony a 'joke'
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- … e-n1081871
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump called the House impeachment inquiry a "joke" on Wednesday shortly after the first day of public testimony and said he still wanted to learn the identity of the whistleblower whose complaint sparked the investigation.
"I hear it's a joke. I haven't watched. I haven't watched for one minute because I've been with the president, which is much more important, as far as I am concerned," Trump said, speaking to reporters at the White House alongside Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "This is a sham, and it shouldn't be allowed."
"I want to find out who is the whistleblower, and because the whistleblower gave a lot of very incorrect information, including my call with the president of Ukraine, which was a perfect call and highly appropriate," Trump continued.
He also criticized Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community's inspector general, or IG, for his decision to report the whistleblower's complaint to Congress as credible. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that he had privately discussed firing Atkinson for sharing the information.
"I want to find out why the IG, why would he have presented that, when in fact, all he had to do is check the call itself and he would've seen it," Trump said.
Trump said he had heard that the public testimony from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent and the acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, was "all third-hand information," echoing pushback from Hill Republicans.
Trump also said he could release the record of a previous call he had with Ukraine in the spring as early as Thursday. The call at the heart of the impeachment investigation occurred over the summer, on July 25.
I don't care about Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden is not the President.
House Republicans are moving forward with an impeachment of President Biden, no one knows for what yet of course they never have any proof of anything, but they're going to do it anyways because they know it feeds their base and the uninformed voter when it comes time for elections.
Oh and by the way we might shut down the government because they haven't bothered to pass an appropriations bill. But please let's get moving forward with the impeachment of a President who's literally done nothing wrong.
I am so sick to death of Republicans and people voting for Republicans.
There is one big fact that polling ignores, and that's the fact that the bottom 3 generations will now have the most control and power in voting for 2024, and this terrifies republicans. So they are doing everything they can to push every single right wing lie out the door on social media. So, you can't trust a single thing a right winger says.
This means that younger and far more progressive folks will have the most say in the 2024 election.
Hopefully, they know it.
So, it's a good thing that polls don't win elections and voters do.
EDIT to add an example - Case in point: polls said that Trump was going to win 2020. Aren't we glad that voters win elections over polls?
Two-thirds of top executives say Trump will be reelected in 2020, business survey reveals
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/trump-w … veals.html
Gallup poll: Majority of Americans believe Trump will win November election
Grizzlor wrote:did the masking truly DO much of anything? Or did the virus beat the masks as it seemed to beat the vaccine in terms of transmission? They were supposed to evaluate this for the "next contagion" but as I referenced, they didn't. In the hoopla of the pandemic, procedures weren't accurately followed and most of the data is inconclusive. That's all I was getting at with I guess it's QuinnSldr who wears a mask frequently. That him wearing it versus not wearing it, if he's a healthy individual, may actually be of slight difference. Maybe you're 60% right, and I'm 40% right, I just don't think the data came out of COVID unscathed.
Commenting on whether or not people wear masks properly or at all is an assessment of human behaviour and societal stigmas and attitudes to personal protective equipment. It is a tangent without bearing on whether or not masks work.
Saying masks don't work because people don't wear them properly or wear them at all is like saying Ford made a bad car because the driver ignored all traffic lights and road signs before crashing it or saying Hewlett-Packard made a bad laptop because the user filled it with spyware and viruses. A mask is not a mask wearer.
The question of QuinnSlidr's immune system is, to me, utterly irrelevant in the discussion of whether or not masks work. QuinnSlidr's BMI, bloodwork, white blood cell count, and daily average temperature for the last year have no relevance to filtration efficacy. QuinnSlidr could be an Olympic athlete or on his deathbed; that still has no effect on electrostatic particle capture.
Do masks work? It's a simple question with an obvious answer: if you wear an electrostatic mask that seals properly, that 95 percent filtration of 0.1 to 0.75 micron particles is obviously going to stop you from inhaling high levels of viral and bacterial particulate.
Raising the subject of people who don't wear masks properly or at all is not an indication of mask efficacy, but human ineptitude. Someone who cares to wear a mask is going to wear it and wear it properly.
What additional protection does a mask grant on a well-functioning immune system? That's a question worth looking into, so I'll return to it once I have some informed answers to share. Anecdotally: I used to get six colds a year. Ever since I started masking, I have had one cold in three years.
**
I'm afraid I don't currently have access to any experts on gain of function research and don't know who to ask about that.
All the gain of function junk is, is a right wing attack on Dr. Fauci, and has no basis in reality. It's based on disinformation and lies at best, and an attack on a national hero at its worst.
Any right wing extremist who continues to scream about it is full-on lying.
Case in point:
The repeated claim that Fauci lied to Congress about ‘gain-of-function’ research
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … -research/
Even now, it’s not clear whether the research funded by EcoHealth in China amounted to gain of function. When the Intercept obtained EcoHealth documents in September, seven of 11 scientists who are virologists or work in adjacent fields told the Intercept that the work appeared to meet NIH’s criteria for gain-of-function research. Obviously, it’s a matter of dispute within the scientific community.
But Cotton claimed NIH admitted that it had funded gain-of-function research. That’s wrong. No such admission appears in the letter, and NIH officials continue to insist that the EcoHealth work using NIH funds did not constitute gain-of-function research.
In 2014, gain-of-function research was paused for three years as the U.S. government set up a case-by-case review process to oversee funding, known as the Potential Pandemic Pathogen Care and Oversight (P3CO) framework. Under that framework, funding of enhanced potential pandemic pathogens would receive greater scrutiny if research was intended to create such pathogens and if the virus was highly transmissible and could create a pandemic among humans.
There has long been criticism that the P3CO framework had too many loopholes. But the EcoHealth grant, awarded in 2014, does not show that it intended to create an enhanced pathogen or that its experiment posed any harm to humans.
“As sometimes occurs in science, this was an unexpected result of the research, as opposed to something that the researchers set out to do,” Lawrence A. Tabak, NIH principal deputy director, wrote in his letter to Congress dated Oct. 20. “Regardless, the viruses being studied under this grant were genetically very distant from SARS-CoV-2,” which causes covid-19.
Now let’s turn to the experiment itself, which involved the use of three chimeric (artificial, laboratory-generated) viruses that are capable of replicating efficiently in human cells with the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the protein that provides the entry point for the coronavirus to hook into and infect human tissue. The experiment relied on “humanized” mice, meaning they were given an ACE2 receptor that mimicked the human form. (The mice were otherwise unchanged.)
=================================
skip to summary
=================================
The Pinocchio Test
EcoHealth’s research has come under increased scrutiny after more details about its work in China have been revealed, either through congressional or journalistic pressure. The NIH letter, flawed though it may be, indicates the federal government is taking a closer look, too.
But we see no reason to change the Two Pinocchio rating we awarded Paul. There is a split in the scientific community about what constitutes gain-of-function research. To this day, NIH says this research did not meet the criteria — a stance that is not an outlier in the scientific community. Indeed, it appears as if EcoHealth halted the experiment as soon as it seemed to veer in that direction.
Meanwhile, Cotton and Cruz are spinning the letter as confirming what it does not say. They are welcome to offer an opinion about its meaning. But, so far, it’s not a fact that NIH has admitted funding gain-of-function research. So they also earn Two Pinocchios.
Dr. Fauci is still a hero, Grizzlor. Despite what republicans want to say to further their BS agenda. Everything above is a right wing extremist lie.
You just went off the deep end about free speech, and you expect me to take you seriously?
To be as polite as possible, Grizzlor, but sorry - you're dead wrong. And your side will always be wrong, because all republicans can do is lie.
Have I been desensitized to movies enough that I don't think they're all that violent? A ton of people die, yes, but I don't think they're gory or bloody at all. Most Wick action scenes are him rolling into a room and a million guys pouring in. He fights with one guy, does a headshot and moves on. Repeat a million times. But I don't think there's much gratuitous violence - despite a million headshots, I don't think there's any shots of murdered people. No skull fragments or missing limbs or anything like that. People bleed when they're shot but I don't think we see that many wounds.
I wouldn't say it is as violent as the Walking Dead, and I don't think it's anywhere near what the Boys is.
I agree with you, Slider_Quinn21. I don't think John Wick is all that violent at all, either. They're one of my favorite movie series of all time, and I enjoy a rewatch every now and again. For me, I dislike gory, violent movies but I did not dislike John Wick at all. I also wouldn't count it among the worst I have seen in this area.
And yes, I've seen all 4. Bring on #5!!!
Sorry Grizzlor, but most of what you're spouting is right wing anti-vaxx propaganda. You might not be a crazy Trumper, but what you're saying is rooted in that propaganda. They aren't facts.
Dr. Fauci is a hero for everything he has done for us.
Personal status update:
I have not stopped wearing masks. And I haven't been sick since July of 2019. I also have all of my updated Covid boosters including the most recent one as of October 20, 2023. I continue to wear a KN95 mask every time I go out. Simply because I live with my 67 year old mother who would probably die if I brought home Covid-19.
I went to a work conference last week - the first time I have been in a large crowd (1600+) since the pandemic started. And I wore my mask. But nobody said anything.
Still no illnesses in this house since 2019. I like not being sick.
I don't find masks uncomfortable at all. Not even mildly. Takes me 1 second to put on, 1 second to remove. Good trade-off to protect others. I'll do it. Even with hearing aids in both ears.
I am really sorry to hear, TF. It always sucks when a rethuglican wins, but even more so when it negatively affects the people you care about.
That party needs major reform. Starting with becoming rational folks again who are not married to Trump and right wing extremism.
And I gotta think this hurts them politically. Republican voters want to send money to Israel and we can't right now. And Biden went to Israel so again maybe that helps with fringe voters.
I don't know what a good solution is for Democrats. Who is the most moderate Republican in the House?
If there's a will, there is usually a way on that R side.
But this R party is beholden to Trump and only Trump, so we will see if anything can be accomplished.
Even if there are any moderates, they're afraid of getting primaried, so they'll still be beholden to Trump just to make their life easier.
Until Trump's hold on the R party is over with in some way, that's how it will always be.
Aawww mannnn...was hoping they would be to the end of season 2 of Quantum Leap before this happened. 
Sounds like La Brea will see no impact from this (thank goodness...can't wait to see season 3).
I thought it was interesting how the Season 1 finale of QUANTUM LEAP 2.0 left it somewhat ambiguous whether or not Ben made it home. The Season 2 premiere takes it as a given that Ben didn't make it and plunges him into an increasingly insane military operation with one of the most stressful sequences I've ever seen on the show, and the Project QL team only appears in flashbacks for most of the episode.
The situation is messed up and strange, and the situation seems to mirror the original cancellation of QL1.0: Sam never made it home and neither did Ben, except where Sam's situation was an awkward afterthought on a season finale abruptly hammered into the frame of a series finale, QL2.0 is telling this story deliberately and willfullly. I wonder where it will go.
This is so good. QL season 2 is even better than season 1 so far. And from what I see: is that Melissa Roxburgh from Manifest as the captain of the mission?
Oh, if I wasn't clear before. Let me be very clear: I do not support RFK Jr on any level. I do not support Donald Trump or his MAGA movement on any level. Trumpism is a disease on this country, and it must be eradicated. I believe this wholeheartedly.
ireactions mentioned that I voted against Trump in 2016 but not for Clinton. I greatly regret this, even though my vote would not have mattered in the result. I grossly underestimated the harm that Donald Trump could do, and it's one reason why I've significantly tried to educate myself in these matters. I didn't used to listen to political podcasts or learn about political figures.
I am a Democrat and support Democrats. I'm about as close to "Vote Blue No Matter Who" as you can be, and I've voted that way locally for the last few elections. I rarely voted in midterms prior to 2016. This year I voted on some random local offcycle election. I voted all Democrats.
ireactions, as usual, is correct in my motivation and goal. Like I said, Trumpism is a disease that must be eradicated. Some diseases can be eliminated by doing the right thing (eating healthy, exercising, cutting bad habits, etc).
Some diseases need to be destroyed with chemotherapy or surgery that can be as painful or more painful than the diseases. And I'm open to any and all (legal and honest) solutions for Donald Trump to lose. And I would prefer that all people that have supported Trump (especially my political nemesis Ted Cruz) also crash and burn. But right now, the focus has to be on eliminating Trump in 2024.
And so that's my thinking in bringing up stuff like Biden's border policy and RFK Jr. I'm *fascinated* by any move that gets Biden closer to victory in 2024. I would *love* if America would wake up and realize that half its citizens are trying to vote for a 4-time indicted conman. I am losing my faith that such a thing is going to happen in time. I don't know if I have enough faith that the courts will even get these trials in on time, and even if they do, I don't have enough faith for my fellow countrymen for that to matter. Too many people have already indicated that they're voting for Trump no matter what.
So can a slight alteration in border policy scrape off a few votes from Trump? If so, I'm in! If RFK Jr runs and can scrape a few MAGA people off the Trump bandwagon, I'm in! Yes, these are both bad things. I don't want Biden to adopt a more-conservative view on the border, but we have to win. I hate that RFK Jr is getting any attention, but we have to win.
********
QuinnSlidr, I appreciate the apology, but I assure you I took no disrespect. I am very sorry for your loss as well.
I appreciate you, Slider_Quinn21.
I will never make that mistake again.
QuinnSlidr, I have to tell you: I am truly baffled and confused by your remarks.
Slider_Quinn21 voted for Biden in the last election and voted not-Trump before that (but not for Clinton).
Slider_Quinn21 described Robert Kennedy Jr. as "crazy" and associated him with other right-wing nutjobs whose names I don't wish to type, all of whom Slider_Quinn21 clearly holds in contempt.
Slider_Quinn21 said that Robert Kennedy Jr. doesn't have any of the ideals that Democrats would vote for; Slider_Quinn21 votes against Republicans.
Whatever the issue is here, it's not Slider_Quinn21's politics. As long as he votes against Trump, that should really be sufficient for your not unreasonable moral standard.
The rest is Slider_Quinn21 psychoanalyzing and gaming out the MAGA movement and how it could play out in the next election. Slider_Quinn21 is an amateur pollster of sorts and analysis is not affiliation. When we start accusing an anti-Trump voter of allegiance to alt-right fascism, there should be more evidence than their political commentary not being wholeheartedly in favour of what Democrat Party does or doesn't do.
The Democratic Party of America is not above criticism or reproach and has serious systemic and structural issues (albeit not as severe as the Republican Party which is basically a criminal organization and a terrorist group at this point). Real democrats don't do loyalty tests or demand ideological purity. They only thing a democrat should demand is a basic foundational belief that should transcend all party boundaries; the belief all people are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them being the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and that James Brown is the godfather of soul.
So what's the actual issue here?
I think the issue is that your stepfather died and you are in pain. I think your fight or flight instincts have gone haywire. I think you are suffering and hurt. I think you are experiencing distress and loss and mistaking observation for enemy action. I think you are looking for a fight when what you need is a friend.
I think you should tell us about your stepfather and why you miss him and what he meant to you and how hard and painful it has been for you.
I think you should share your memories of him, both the good and the bad, and why his loss has left a void in your life that is leaving you in agony.
This has been a transparent attempt to be sentimental with what I confess is a guess and possibly projection, because "I think you are looking for a fight when what you need is a friend" would also apply to me at many points in my life.
This has also been a transparent attempt to request that Slider_Quinn21 not to be offended or upset with you for these odd attacks on his politics and to ask him to remember that you're going through something really hard and horrible.
I was just calling it like I saw it. And I owe Slider_Quinn21 an apology. I can admit when I am wrong. I dislike anything positive about the right wing at any point at this point, and his statements just felt like a veiled attempt at spreading positivity about right wingers, without knowing more. Like I said, if I am incorrect, nevermind.
I also apologize for jumping the gun.
It has nothing to do with my stepdad, but everything to do about my dislike of right wingers. The mere mention of Joe Rogan or Steve Bannon makes me physically ill.
QuinnSlidr wrote:I don't celebrate any right wing nutcase.
RFK Jr. doesn't deserve the name Kennedy.
Well, I'm not celebrating him. I don't want him to have any power or for anyone to like anything he says. I'm talking about a means to an end, and I think Kennedy might be the means to that end. Same as if Don Jr or Rudy Guiliani or whoever were to run. If it splits MAGA, then MAGA cannot win.
It's a little confusing, because of statements like these that indicate overwhelming support on your side for these candidates...
"I'm intrigued by RFK Jr. going into the race as an independent."
"He's been strongly supported by MAGA as some kind of spoiler to Biden, but that's because he's philosophically a conservative. He's straight crazy, and he's supported by Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Ron DeSantis, and Joe Rogan, among others."
"He made a lot of noise early because he was polling in the teens/20s in certain polls."
"Experts said it was essentially name recognition driving the polling because, again, he doesn't have any of the same ideals that Democrats would ever vote for." <---- derogatory remark against Dems?
I might be misunderstanding. If so, nevermind...
I'm intrigued by RFK Jr. going into the race as an independent. He's been strongly supported by MAGA as some kind of spoiler to Biden, but that's because he's philosophically a conservative. He's straight crazy, and he's supported by Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, Ron DeSantis, and Joe Rogan, among others. He made a lot of noise early because he was polling in the teens/20s in certain polls. Experts said it was essentially name recognition driving the polling because, again, he doesn't have any of the same ideals that Democrats would ever vote for.
But as an independent, I think he's much more dangerous to Trump than Biden. I think the test will be whether the Democrats can convince their voters that RFK is *not* a true Kennedy and whether or not conservatives can convince his true believers to vote for Trump.
What do we think?
I don't celebrate any right wing nutcase.
RFK Jr. doesn't deserve the name Kennedy.
I look forward to catching up with Dr. Ben tomorrow!
Me too!!!
It's odd but it is premium access to view on Peacock -- yet on NBC app, S2E1 is free.
There was a fair amount of promotion for the premiere, but I suspect it was on channels you dont really watch. Like, aimed at the network tv viewer.
Yeah, I don't watch network TV anymore. I've completely transitioned to the cord cutter life since 2018-ish.
They don't advertise on:
Hulu
Disney+
Peacock
Paramount+
YouTube
Amazon Prime
or Max.
All of my apps of choice.
Sliders.tv → Posts by QuinnSlidr
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
