301

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

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

302

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

303

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

304

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

**

"Somehow, Palpatine returned."

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

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

305

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

306

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

307

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

**

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

**

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

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

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

308

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

309

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

pilight never tells me what I want to hear.

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

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

310

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

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

I take no pleasure in saying that, either.

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

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

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

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

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

311

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

312

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

313

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

pilight wrote:

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

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

314

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

315

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

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

316

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

317

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

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

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

318

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

319

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

320

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

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

I hope you're right.

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

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

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

321

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Grizzlor and pilight.

322

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I apologize for posting so much from Simon Rosenberg.

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

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

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

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

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

323

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Simon Rosenberg wrote:

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

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

Jen O'Malley Dillon wrote:

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

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

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

Simon Rosenberg wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

324

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

325

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

(He said fearfully.)

326

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm scared. But...

Simon Rosenberg wrote:

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

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

327

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

328

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

329

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are not easy experiences.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

But... I have faith in you.

330

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

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

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

332

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

And it still won't make his supporters any less devoted.

WTF, right? Honestly, human beings can be such a joke, except I'm not laughing.

333

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I hope he's right.

334

(140 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Here is the fight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4EwWkuXbFw

Clark does his signature move of throwing Titan who is then stabbed through the heart. Clark flat out said going into the fight that he believed the best resolution would be for him to kill Titan, and given how Clark stepped into a kill or be killed combat situation with the intention of using lethal force, Clark considers himself a killer after this.

Clark tells Martha at the end, as he prepares to hunt down more Phantom Zone escapees menacing innocent humans: "I don't know how to return them to the Phantom Zone. The only way to get rid of them is to kill them like I did Titan." Martha protests that it was an accident and that Titan was trying to kill Clark. "So I just killed him first?" Clark protests. "How does that make me any different than Titan?" The debate is left unresolved.

I personally am... okay with Clark using lethal force against a superpowered adversary who wanted him and any easy prey humans dead. As the Professor would say, this was a roaming predator, not a social worker. At the same time, it would worry me if Clark weren't looking into containment options first.

Interestingly, Steven S. DeKnight, the Season 5 - 6 supervising producer consulting on all episodes (and also the writer of one of your favourites, "Run" with Bart Allen), was highly resistant to Clark killing anyone, highly resistant to the usual situation of villains conveniently defeating themselves... and paradoxically/fascinatingly pushed for a situation where Clark would set out to kill a villain and be deeply troubled by it at the end, and he wanted it to end on an uncertain note.

I know I've been really down on SMALLVILLE and said Seasons 2 - 7 are bad, but I was mistaken. The main issue with SMALLVILLE is that the brilliant creators and showrunners, Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, were frequently absent, focusing on feature film scripts instead of writing and rewriting scripts for their TV show. As a result, staff writers often defaulted to freaks of the week as a safe area of easy showrunner approval; story arcs would not be consistent or coherent; nobody else seemed empowered to do rewrites on freelance stories or each other's scripts. Season 2 was a mess due to the absent leadership, Season 3 was stronger because Millar and Gough were more present that year, but Season 4 was a mess again.

However, Seasons 5 and 6 are absolutely great. I think it's all thanks to Steven S. DeKnight being brought in as supervising producer after "Run" and "Spirit" in Season 4. DeKnight's grasp of drama, banter, comedy, absurdity, superheroics and story arcs were honed to a fine art on ANGEL, and DeKnight seems so perfect for SMALLVILLE. More importantly, SMALLVILLE was not the first show where Steven S. DeKnight had worked for showrunners who didn't seem to be around; he'd been in a similar situation on ANGEL where Joss Whedon held total authority and yet wasn't there on a daily basis to lead the show.

DeKnight seemed to have a talent for identifying the absent showrunner's preferences and writing material that he was passionate about that the showrunner would readily approve. He seemed to have a similar ability to gauge what story ideas Gough and Millar would want to buy and what season-long arcs they'd approve. ANGEL had given DeKnight extensive experience in stewarding a show where he wasn't in charge.

This is probably why SMALLVILLE with DeKnight as supervising producer suddenly became a lot more coherent, dramatic, skillful and comedic, and it's probably why SMALLVILLE went from avoiding the issue of Clark maybe having to kill villains to confronting it head on and not trying to offer an easy answer.

DeKnight left after Season 6... which may be why I remember Season 7 being utterly terrible.

335

(140 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Hey, I need to ask Slider_Quinn21 something. Given how controversial Henry Cavill was as Superman -- how did SQ21 feel when Clark killed Titan in Season 6, Episode 17, "Combat"?

Also, I've been rewatching the show, and while Seasons 2 and 4 are as bad as I recall, Season 1 is strong and Seasons 3 is very good, and Seasons 5 and 6 I would go so far as to call great. I am not at Season 7 yet, but I recall it being terrible.

My concern about a Batman movie featuring Batman and his homicidal 10 year old son Damian (as he is in the comics) -- movies are shot and go through post production over at least a year, and then pre-production has to set up the next film. If they hire a 10 year old actor to play Damian, he'll be at least 12 in the second film, 14 by the third, and so forth. How are they going handle this? Will Damian age with the actor, or will they hire a performer with a genetic predisposition to staying short and skinny?

337

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm scared, Greg.

I haven't lost hope... but sometimes, hope just fills me with fear because I know how much it will hurt if that hope is proven false.

And my spare room is currently filled with my mother's dialysis supplies and I cannot find the air mattress, so I am not sure I can offer Rob and his wife and kids a place to stay if he moves to Canada.

But it doesn't matter. My fear and hope won't change anything. There's only one thing that ever makes a difference.

Back to work.

338

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, I just started a new thread for the James Gunn era: https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?id=487

All DC TV shows and animated productions from 1966 - 2024 can be discussed in the newly named DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) thread: https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?id=67

All DC feature films from 1943 - 2024 can be discussed in the DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) thread: https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?id=60

We can talk about SMALLVILLE here: https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?id=167

I hope that isn't too confusing. I'm already having to make exceptions:

  • The 1966 BATMAN film is discussed in the 1966 - 2024 TV thread (because it launched from the TV show)

  • THE BATMAN (2022) is discussed in the 2025 thread (because its sequel will be produced by James Gunn and we may as well cover the first installment in the same thread)

  • THE SUICIDE SQUAD (2021) and PEACEMAKER's first season in 2022 are also part of the 2025 thread (because both are James Gunn projects).

If someone has a better idea, lay it out and I'll see what can be done.

With the impending launch of James Gunn's DC Universe in theatrical films, streaming shows and animated productions, it's become necessary to start a new thread specifically for the James Gunn era: DC Superheroes in Cinema and Streaming (2025 and Onward).

The James Gunn era technically pre-dates 2025 with his film THE SUICIDE SQUAD (2021) and and his series PEACEMAKER (2022), in addition to CREATURE COMMANDOS which debuts in December 2024 and runs to January 2025 on MAX. The second season of PEACEMAKER will stream in 2025 and Gunn's DC cinematic era will launch in theatres with SUPERMAN on July 11, 2025.

THE BATMAN (2022) by Matt Reeves, while pre-dating James Gunn, will see a sequel during the James Gunn era and should be included here as well.

Since we can't say for sure how long Gunn will lead the DC film division (may it be a long and prosperous reign), it seems better to call this era the 2025 and Onward era while grandfathering in THE BATMAN, THE SUICIDE SQUAD and PEACEMAKER.

Meanwhile, we can continue to discuss the Arrowverse and all pre-Gunn DC TV shows in the DC Superheroes on TV & Streaming (1966 - 2024) thread: https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?id=67

And we can keep talking about the DCEU, the Christopher Nolan Batman films, and all other pre-Gunn DC movies in the DC Superheroes in Film (1943 - 2024) thread: https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?id=60

There is also a separate thread for SMALLVILLE: https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php?id=167

340

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'd like to believe this, but ominous vagaries, even if they're in favour of my preferences, are still just ominous vagaries.

Given how self-incriminating Trump is already, I'm not optimistic there is any bombshell left to be had. Bombshells for Trump have become background noise, unfortunately.

341

(687 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Which threads do you want renamed to what?

342

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Simon Rosenberg wrote:

Independent polls show Harris ahead 2-3-4 points and winning the electoral college. Red wave polls show Trump winning. Do not fall for their fuckery, peeps. We are winning this election but have not won it yet. We have 14 days now to go win it, together. https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/harr … -new-polls

I think Brad Schwartz is saving face with an untruth. The reality, from what I can tell, is that James Gunn could have wholeheartedly and totally supported more seasons of SUPERMAN AND LOIS and the CW would have still been reluctant to pay for it with their new budget reductions. When the CW can't even keep THE WINCHESTERS and WALKER: TEXAS RANGER going, it's going to struggle with SUPERMAN AND LOIS.

I'm also doubtful that James Gunn would have even been able to stop SUPERMAN AND LOIS if the CW were inclined to order another season. Gunn may certainly be in charge of in-house WB film and TV projects, but a CW Superman show comes from the CW network purchasing the licensing rights to Superman for a period of time with options to extend, and I can't imagine the CW not locking in those extensions even if they may waive them.

I don't know if there was any "supposed to". Most major network shows, studios and creators will hope for seven seasons of a TV show by default as an ideal point for streaming and broadcast sales for ad revenue and subscription earnings.

I can assure you that, no matter what the CW says, James Gunn did not get SUPERMAN AND LOIS cancelled. Ever since CW was purchased by Nexstar, there has been a mass cancellation of their scripted programming that operates at a higher price point than what the CW now prefers.

This network couldn't keep THE WINCHESTERS or WALKER: TEXAS RANGER on the air at this new budget ceiling, and SUPERMAN AND LOIS was the most expensive show on the CW. Its budget-reduced, truncated return for a fourth and final season was all the CW was willing to pay. Gunn did not shut this series down; the CW did.

It seems to me like the situation is another part of the budget reduction where some of the former cast can only be in three episodes because it's what production can afford to pay. Interestingly, on social media, this actor said that he wasn't going to be in the fourth season at all, only to later be seen in on-set photos.

346

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump's demands that Kamala be forced off are obviously projection: he is angry because Joe Biden was his preferred opponent.

347

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Someone previously posted when Trump got shot that the election was "over" and I thought that was nonsensical. So, when someone says Kamala will win and the election is over... I mean, that strikes me as magical thinking, not reality.

Simon Rosenberg:

The Vice President has a 2-3-4 point lead in the national popular vote, is closer to 270 in the battlegrounds and has far better favs/unfavs than Trump. She is better liked and more likable and that matters as people make up their mind in the closing days.

Our financial and ground advantages means more ads and direct voter contacts in the final days, making it far more likely we move a close election towards us than they move it towards them.

Be aware of the magnitude of the 2024 red wave effort. It has far bigger than 2022 and includes new actors like Polymarket and Elon. They are working hard to create the impression that the election is slipping away from us when it isn’t. And a reminder that they would only be flooding the zone with their polls again if they didn’t think they were winning the election.

Our candidate isn’t bat shit crazy and melting down on camera every day now. Our candidate isn’t a rapist, fraudster, traitor and 34 times felon, the oldest person to be the nominee of an American political party and the most dangerous political leader in all of our history.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/2-ne … ing-harris

348

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I am really scared.

But I am continuing to fulfill my responsibilities and do the things I need to do for myself and others.

I'm afraid, but I'm trying not to let it stop me from doing anything.

349

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think Kamala going on FOX and Rogan demonstrates the willingness to reach beyond diehards and to reluctant voters.

I've rewatched Max Landis' video on Superman's power levels and how his only path is to save or conquer. I'd say... while a valid perspective, it's primarily focused on Superman's external superpowers and neglects more internal aspects.

Often, the argument is that power can reveal while absolute power will corrupt absolutely. The fantasy of Superman is that someone with great power would wield it almost entirely in service of civilization as a whole; and this person would, in using their power for themselves, only use it for harmless personal indulgences like eating lots of ice cream and never gaining weight (Dean Cain) or using superspeed to make up for sleeping in later (Tom Welling).

Often, it's claimed that this is implausible and unlikely that someone with this power would not use it to serve themselves.

In the "Leech" episode of SMALLVILLE, Clark's powers are transferred to an abused and bullied teenager named Eric Summers. Eric, shortly after discovering his superstrength, violently assaults his abusive father and his school bully. Clark asks his parents if they were ever afraid of Clark and Clark's strength. Jonathan says Clark had a few tantrums as a child and kicked some holes in walls, but never hurt anyone and never frightened Jonathan or Martha.

From a physiological standpoint, I offer this head canon: Clark's alien body absorbs and stores solar energy -- sunlight -- in a way that also makes Clark highly sensitive to light in all forms. Light is not just energy to Clark; it's sensory information that he can access via his super senses where his eyes can absorb vast levels of light and also magnify minute levels, and he can even perceive the way sound saves interact with light waves to hear small sounds and across great distances. Clark will amplify these super senses at times, but he's also living with heightened awareness in his daily life, in ways he reflexively tones down but doesn't tune out.

These super senses would give Clark an increased awareness of all the biological processes around him: when someone is hurt or sick or sad or lonely, Clark can subconsciously feel a reflected version of those sensations and emotions.

It wouldn't be to the degree where he's overwhelmed by them, and it largely manifests as super empathy and super compassion -- an innate awareness of the fragility of life around him. As a result, the young Clark, even when upset, was highly aware of how he could hurt his parents and restrained himself.

When Eric receives Clark's powers, Eric likely has the same perception of life around him being fragile -- but it manifests as contempt and dominance and as the sick pleasure of being able to inflict pain upon the people who tormented him who are now defenceless. Clark had the benefit of a loving and nurturing environment where the pain of others was met with understanding and support; Eric was raised by an abusive father who taught him that other people's pain was to be relished and to keep them in line, so his enhanced awareness of life becomes a form of superiority.

While I have a lot of issues with SMALLVILLE, for the most part, it believes that Superman's physical superpowers also come with super senses, and also super morality and super empathy. One version of Superman's comic book origin, BIRTHRIGHT, outright makes the super compassion textual by saying that Superman can see a field of light and life around all living beings and that it is emotionally and physically devastating for him when he sees that light die. For me, that's a little too overt and I would prefer it as something more subconscious yet present.

I admit, in saying the super senses can either manifest as empathy or superiority, we are back to saying that Superman could either save or conquer -- but I would also note that Tom Welling did an amazing job of showing Clark's gentleness and compassion in his performances, and his cautious screen presence certainly implies an awareness of how breakable the world is for Clark.

Who was this figure and what was your favourite analysis?

I'll remount it for you so you can have an alternate source.

I thought it was good. But... I question the merit of doing SUPERMAN AND LOIS where Superman is dead. It seems to defeat the purpose of having a Superman show.

I'm relieved that, despite the reductions, all of the cast will be present, even if they won't be in every episode.

The flashback to a thirtysomething Clark admitting to Lois that he's never had sex was hilarious.

353

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Simon Rosenberg:

Red Wave Pollsters Stepped Up Their Work This Week - The red wavers stepped up their activity this past week, releasing at least 20 polls across the battlegrounds. It’s a sign that they are worried about the public polling in both the Presidential and the Senate, and have dramatically escalated their efforts to push the polling averages to the right and make the election look redder than it is. As in 2022, these polls usually between 2 and 4 points more Republican than the independent polling so when there a lot of them they can move the averages rightward.

As I wrote in my last look at this rancid project, it is time for those who analyze polls to start acknowledging that there is now a third type of poll - the red wave, right-aligned narrative polling that only exist for a single purpose - to move the polling averages to the right. They are exploiting the “toss it in the averages and everything will work out philosophy” of these sites to once again launder these polls and game the averages - and thus our understanding of the election. Party leaders should expect them to keep these polls coming, and keep working the averages until it looks like Trump is winning in all polling averages. It is what they did in 2022, and it worked. They are doing it again this time, and once again it is working as the averages are moving and everyone is treating this movement like an organic rather than a deeply corrupt process.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/the- … aign-early

354

(140 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

One of the things I found frustrating about SMALLVILLE: Season 1 seemed to be gently laying the Clark/Lana romance to rest in the last third or so of the episodes and moving Chloe into the role of Clark's love interest. This made sense on every level: Chloe was directly involved in investigating the weekly villains and Clark's eventual wife is Lois Lane, a quippy, intrepid, adventurous journalist like Chloe.

Season 2 abruptly removed this and sidelined Chloe while making her obnoxiously jealous and ridiculously invested in wanting a boy who, for whatever reason, didn't want her back. This has always struck me as the showrunners reasserting control after the majority of the Season 1 writers left, with the studio, showrunners and network all wanting to sell the show on Kristin Kreuk's face alongside Tom Welling's and Michael Rosenbaum's, taking the view that Kreuk was the one they were paying to be the female lead, not Allison Mack. Chloe passive-aggressively told Clark she just wanted to be friends and immaturely got upset when he agreed.

Setting that aside -- why isn't Clark interested in Chloe? Tom Welling, in Talkville, offered this view: Clark and Chloe were friends trying to stretch their friendship into something it wasn't.

I have a different view, and I don't entirely believe my theory, but going by what's onscreen: my view is that Clark defaults to his attraction to Lana and dismisses his attraction because Lana wants normalcy and Clark wants to be a normal person. Lana's trauma over the meteor shower and preference for civilian life demands that Clark suppress and hide his alien side, which he wants to do to be a normal kid. Lana keeps Clark in his comfort zone.

Chloe doesn't do that: Chloe wants to explore the extraordinary and bizarre and alien, all the things that Clark is suppressing and hiding and avoiding in himself. Chloe's investigative nature unnerves Clark, makes him guarded and withdrawn. It maybe subconscious, but Clark avoids romancing someone who is too curious, too outspoken, too bold and too analytical because that curious, outspoken, bold, analytical person might uncover and reveal his secrets. Clark wants the ordinary, not the extraordinary.

However, when Clark meets Lois, there is a gradual shift. Lois may be a goofier, sillier version of Chloe, but there is a distinct difference: Lois adores both the ordinary and the extraordinary. Lois takes as much joy in small town barbeques and living on a farm as she does in battling mutants and investigating aliens. Lois makes Clark realize he can have both the ordinary and the extraordinary.

Chloe's never interested in ordinary life. Chloe's adulthood is defined by her support work for superheroes and she never wants to go back. Chloe has no interest in being a civilian, whereas Clark very much wants a civilian life. They were fundamentally opposed in what they wanted out of life.

That is my head canon and as someone who adored the Chlark ship, I only half believe it.

355

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It seems to me that the sequel did something you described GOTHAM doing with the Joker.

I'm not really a fan of villains on their own, this movie isn't for me. But it's interesting.

356

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

So.

Nervous.

Simon Rosenberg wrote:

The election is here, and while I think we are winning today, we have not won it yet. https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/harr … ir-game-as

357

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I saw Joker.

I really don't know what to say about it.  It's a disturbing movie just because it's so dingy and dirty and gross, and the movie can manipulate you in certain ways so that you're expecting things to turn around for Arthur.  And I had to keep telling myself that this is a bad guy, and he's not getting a "happy ending" (although, for him, it's a happy ending).

It reminds me of BoJack Horseman.  That's a show that's so dark that it has to be a cartoon with anthropomorphic animals.  If it was about Will Arnett as a failed child actor, it'd be too depressing to watch. 

I feel like Joker only works because it's a comic book character.  If it was just about a downtrodden white man getting revenge on people, I think it'd be destroyed because it's absolutely the wrong movie for this time.  But since it's technically a comic book movie, it gets a pass.

Although it is barely a comic book movie.  Arthur shows almost none of the trademark characteristics of the Joker.  He's neither all that smart or all that cunning, and his success is more built on luck than anything else.  I think Arthur is someone that Batman would take out in a matter of seconds.  And the other comic book characters (Thomas Wayne, in particular) isn't a version of that character that I recognize - although he's designed to be built as a sort of villain.

At the end of the day, I think it's worth seeing, but I don't think it's a movie I really have any interest in revisiting.

"Arthur shows almost none of the trademark characteristics of the Joker.  He's neither all that smart or all that cunning."

Hmm!

I haven't seen the sequel to JOKER and I don't plan too, but I've been reading articles about it. Hmm!

358

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Wow. I will probably carve out some time to read it on Saturday.

359

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Why Trump is so much angrier at women this year:
https://www.salon.com/2024/09/25/donald … l-in-line/

360

(3,542 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Why the Trump watches are garbage:
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/everything … ed-to-know