481

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I despise Donald Trump.

Attempting to assassinate him is a foolish and destructive act that only emboldens and encourages the brand of violence and hatred that Trump himself encourages.

It's wrong on every level. It's wrong on a moral level to use lethal force on someone who isn't physically and immediately attacking you.

It's wrong on an ethical level because we don't want America to be a place where murder dictates elections whether it's on one side or the other.

It's wrong on a strategic level because it enables people who are either crazy, ignorant, dishonest, foolish, or some combination of all four, to turn Trump into a figure of sympathy and gives his cause further militance and make inane claims like "the election is over".

Trying to kill Trump isn't just morally and ethically wrong. It demonstrates an utterly incompetent sense of political strategy. It's wrong.

It's also stupid.

482

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Most of the people claiming Trump has won the election because he got shot are the people seeking to shape the narrative towards a Trump victory that they want in the first place. It has no basis in fact. Getting shot is not, last I checked, a key part of presidential duties or foreign relations or public health on a national scale.

It is indeed very curious that someone who claims to be a Democrat is participating in urgently shaping the narrative to claim that Trump being shot has secured a Trump term, a very peculiar leap that seems less like an observation (because it isn't) and more like a slanted direction. The statement is nonsensical whether it comes from Republicans or someone claiming to be a Democrat. Getting shot does not win an election. Getting more votes is what wins an election.

In terms of the polls: even post-debate, reliable polls indicate that nothing has really shifted from a dead heat, or, as what Simon Rosenberg calls it, "close and competitive": https://x.com/SimonWDC/status/1812475228641005746

483

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump was shot at today on Pennsylvania and lived.  Bloodied but played it up for the cameras.  Election is over.  He'll get a huge bump in the polls from that.  Play the sympathetic hero part.  May as well leave Biden on the ticket, he deserves the humiliation coming. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/181225857 … g&s=19

I'm getting very bored with people who jump onto whichever bandwagon of doom they thinks is trendy this week based on nothing more than paranoia and the clumsy belief that assuming the worst makes one seem clever and prophetic as opposed to boorish and facile.

Given that there are only two possible outcomes to a Democrat/Republican election (one party or the other), any prediction has a 50-50 chance of being right, and anyone who declares their prediction to be fact based on a single event is simply shallow.

People like this don't have values or beliefs or perspectives. They just have anxieties, grievances and bandwagons and their views are just random flailing.

**

Simon Rosenberg shared an update on why he believes the election remains "close and competitive" based on polls where Republican funded frauds have been filtered out:
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/why- … can-win-my

Joe Biden spoke at NATO honouring its mission and existence.
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/why- … can-win-my

Biden also gave a press conference after the NATO conference where, despite slips of the tongue, Biden demonstrated an in-depth and capable knowledge of foreign affairs and diplomacy that Donald Trump is incapable of delivering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFCbn6bgeVM

The slips of the tongue: Biden accidentally referred to President Zelenskiy as "President Putin" at the conference and referred to Kamala Harras as "Vice President Trump"... but the forcefulness of his performance made it clear that these are the usual errors of Biden as a self-described "gaffe machine".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/art … rris-trump

Biden gave a powerful speech at a Detroit rally where he gave his goals for his first 100 days in office of a second term and remarked that his conflating names was nothing compared to Donald Trump's Project 2025 plans of fascism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqLj917Qu3c

484

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Thank you, QuinnSlidr. And everyone should note according to Simon Rosenberg here: the 1 - 3 percent differences hereare so within the range of error that the race is what Rosenberg calls "close and competitive" rather than anyone being ahead or behind.

Biden's falling fundraising (as reported by the press but denied by the campaign) could be an issue.

485

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden is not a failure.

Unless he loses to Trump.

486

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think being a Democrat means having no criticism of Biden. Loyalty to democracy is not loyalty to an incumbent officeholder.

There are reports that Biden's fundraising is collapsing due to donors who want a new nominee. He may not have the money to campaign effectively.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/1 … g-00167496

487

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden gave a strong NATO speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeP7z1GCsDM

Joe Biden will be interviewed by Lester Holt on Monday:
https://www.axios.com/2024/07/10/biden- … -interview

488

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm scared.

I'm especially worried that Captain America comic books become hard to read if the worst happens.

489

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think anyone non-Biden candidate besides Kamala Harris would have the money to run effectively at this point. The Biden-Harris campaign funds are legally restricted to Biden or Harris; a Biden/Newsom ticket can use that money; a non-Harris/someone else ticket cannot use that money. A new candidate would not be able to fundraise enough to run an effective campaign.

There's a lot of talk about preferring Harris to be the nominee over Biden, and while I'm enamoured with the idea, potential presidential candidates always seem more appealing before they become actual presidential candidates and have every aspect of them put under a microscope. The grass may look greener than it actually is.

I personally would prefer it if Biden resigned, made Harris acting VP and the nominee, and gave Harris the chance to fill the enthusiasm gap that Biden's debate performance has created.

But Biden has some good points too: all the losing polls right now are laughably slanted by deliberately sloppy Republican polls. Simon Rosenberg notes that the supposed red wave of 2022 was an illusion created by Republican polls, and that the Biden/Trump race is extremely close and competitive. What concerns me: Trump's supporters are insane and devoted Republicans. Biden's supporters are now riddled with uncertainty and doubt, and that lack of enthusiasm can diminish voting. In a race where 10 - 20 thousand votes can mean winning or losing, that lack of enthusiasm is deeply disturbing.

Biden thinks he can win back that enthusiasm from voters and from donors. And I will concede: that debate notwithstanding, Joe Biden is good at politics. And I will confess, every time I've bet against Biden, I've lost money.

I have spent my whole life thinking that Biden is losing and that he's finished. I thought he'd disqualified himself as VP when he called Obama "clean" as if to imply black people are dirty. I thought he was done when he expressed support for gay marriage when Obama had failed to do the same. I thought his initial 2020 primary performance had crashed completely. I thought his campaign looked like it could lose by a tight margin or that Trump's coup would take Biden down.

Joe Biden has always proven me wrong. He has always defeated my expectations.

I just don't know if he can do it this time. Which means nothing, because I've never been optimistic about him.

I don't know. I hope QuinnSlidr is right. I'm scared that he's not.

Anyway. I'm going to write Biden some fan mail and tell him he did his son proud, and he has nothing left to prove to anyone.

490

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Look, I've had my blow-ups with pilight. And as someone who has had some fights with pilight -- I genuinely do not believe pilight is being ageist.

(Slider_Quinn21, on the other hand, totally hates old people, constantly ranting about how Ben Affleck was too old to play Batman.) (I'm joking.)

The reality, fair or unfair, is that there has been a flood of anecdotes about Joe's lapses of awareness, acuity and mental clarity.
https://www.vox.com/politics/359024/bid … pses-polls

Fairly or unfairly, the Democratic Party is turning against Joe. With opposition from Democrats and antagonists in Republicans, Joe is being squeezed on every end. Donors are pulling out. Abigail Disney won't donate to Biden.

Whether those anecdotes paint a fair picture or not, the situation for Biden's campaign looks bad to me.

As for Biden himself? He served with honour. His son Beau would be proud of him. I know that because if Joe Biden were my father, I would be proud of him. Biden could pass the torch to Kamala Harris with honour and know he did right by his son and his country.

491

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I think this is about Joe Biden's dead son.

Joe Biden loved his son, Beau Biden. Joe, in his autobiography, PROMISES TO KEEP, describes how Beau went from being someone Joe took care of and raised to someone Joe looked up to and from whom Joe drew inspiration. Beau was an attorney general dedicated to prosecuting the corrupt.

Joe writes about how, as his vice-presidency began, he imagined he would retire after two terms and devote himself entirely to supporting Beau's political career and helping Beau run for the US presidency. Beau Biden had brain cancer and died in 2015.

I think Joe's run for the presidency, while motivated by loathing for Trump, has been in some ways a wish to live the life that Beau Biden was unable to live and achieve the lost potential of his beloved son. To honour Beau by accomplishing everything his son could not.

I think this wish to achieve Beau's unfulfilled goals may have gone too far. It may have become something overinflated and overextended to the point where it is potentially harmful to not only Biden and his legacy but to the country and the world.

I grieve with Joe Biden, but I'm afraid of what could happen in November.

492

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, I don't know if it's BS. It's a narrative. It may be a factually slanted narrative, but the examples are clearly factual given the range and spectrum of all these anecdotes of Biden's senior moments.

They may be cherrypicked examples, but they are still examples. A two minute performance does nothing to bely this.

His speech at the Wisconsin rally today is animated, powerful and wonderful -- but he's reading off a teleprompter.
https://www.youtube.com/live/tleujWDs-G … amp;t=6307

His ABC interview is unscripted and... fine. But the rasp is there. The verbal fumbles are there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFyBapzgbSs

I mis-speak as often as Biden does in this interview. But now the world is seizing on every slip Biden makes, seeing every single twitch and whisper as a sign of weakness.

I'm scared. Look, if Biden's running and if I could vote in the US, I'd vote Biden. I just... don't know if he can do it.

I'm afraid.

493

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

More details on how Biden's cold ruined his debate prep.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/0 … d-00166624

I would say to anyone who wonders if it's unfaithful to call for Biden to step down and have Kamala Harris assume the Oval Office: supporting the proposed plan of Acting Madame President Kamala Harris is not disloyalty to Biden. Biden chose Harris. Biden believed in Harris. Supporting is Harris is supporting Biden.

494

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm scared Grizzlor could be right. Biden's diminishment -- and I am reserving judgement on how much he has diminished -- wouldn't be in a straight line. People can have good days or excel in specific situations like executive management while just no longer having what it takes to campaign and perform in public.

Hoping Joe Biden won't have another senior moment in public is not a plan. Acting Madame President Kamala Harris would be a plan.

495

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

What is the deal with Mitt Romney? Why is ireactions so fascinated with him? I'm reading ROMNEY: A RECKONING in which Romney granted biographer McKay Coppins full access to Romney's diary and emails, gave Coppins extensive interviews, and allowed Coppins total control of the book as some sort of twisted exercise in shame and self-flagellation matched with pride and honour.

Mitt Romney's life is a study of contradiction and compromise. His father George was a hardworking car manufacturer and a fervent social justice warrior whose anti-war and anti-racism saw his Republican presidential campaign crash hard in the white-centric/war hawkish era of 1968. Romney saw that in politics, an unwillingness to match the party line would be a recipe for defeat.

As a husband, father, Morman, missionary, and community volunteer, Romney was generous, loving, patient and kind, spending time tending to sick children and engaged in active and passionate charity. As a businessman, Romney bought businesses with borrowed money, saddled those businesses with debt, outsourced jobs and laid off workers and devastated entire communities to cover the debt, and sold the remaining assets for his own profit.

Romney's biographer questions Romney about this, and Romney admits: he rationalized it to himself as living up to his obligation to his investors, he told himself those businesses were already failing before he bought them -- and Romney confesses: "It's human nature to rationalize what's in our own self-interest." There is a sense that Romney devoted the whole of his moral fire to his community, family and religious life, and used that to excuse his destructive profiteering in his business life.

Then in politics: Romney felt no true loyalty to the Republican party and considered himself a moderate independent who'd voted for different parties, but his father was a Republican. He registered as a Republican for his (failed) 1994 run for Senate to run against the Democrat Ted Kennedy. He ran successfully for governor of Massachusetts, again as a Republican because the Republican governor Jane Swift was stepping down. Romney's Republicanism was branding opportunism, not genuine belief.

Throughout his presidential campaigns, Romney repeatedly compromised his values and beliefs, trying to match his moderate views with the increasing extremes of Republican conspiracy theories and hardline stances. He describes Donald Trump as a nutjob whose endorsement Romney sought as an embarrassing but necessary political price to be taken seriously among all the Republican crazies with whom Romney shared a party.

He thought of it as his chance to bring some sanity to conservatism, but this is clearly another exercise in rationalizing his own self-interest in his bid for political power, the same form of rationalization he used to live with laying off so many American workers. And so, Romney campaigned in his run for president with speeches declaring that anyone depending on the social safety net didn't deserve his help; that poor Americans shouldn't have health care; that America needed to be more militaristically intimidating, bowing to the hardline extremes of his party and his speechwriters even when he didn't genuinely believe it.

Romney's presidential campaign was a failure. His brand identity was confusing. He couldn't coherently present himself as job creator with a history of impoverishing communities. He couldn't convincingly portray himself as a compassionate volunteer charity worker while declaring that everyone on welfare was undeserving of help. He couldn't act as an opponent of Obamacare when he'd fought for and achieved near-universal health coverage in Massachusetts as governor. He couldn't stand as a moderate who represented the extremes of Republicanism.

It was confusing. He couldn't sell a confusing message.

Throughout his life, Romney has sought to live his sense of honour and virtue thoroughly and wholeheartedly in how he treats his neighbours and his wife and his sons and his community and his friends and anyone he knows personally... while rationalizing his moral compromises and unethical decisions in business and politics.

And as the Utah US Senator, Romney finally reached what was going to be the height of his political career and stopped caring about following the party line. He rejected a measure of his moral compromises, but not all and certainly not most. He voted to impeach Donald Trump, but also to seat Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court. Romney's heart isn't in Republicanism (although the rest of his body tends to be).

Mitt Romney is morally compromised and a horror of ethical conundrums and severely dented integrity. Romney is a fascinating human being who is clearly engaged in a fumbling search for redemption for his crimes against society and his awareness that he has repeatedly betrayed his sense of right and wrong.

496

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden did a July 4 interview on The Earl Ingram show and, again, he was good: thoughtful, impassioned, presidential.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e … 0661153768

**

Christopher Bouzy is absolutely right that replacing the Biden-Harris ticket would be a disaster due to the Biden-Harris campaign funds being stricted to Biden or to Harris... which underlines how it would be a strong strategy for Biden to resign and campaign for the acting Madame President Kamala Harris to become the elected US President.

Look, I like Biden, and I believe he has done as well as anyone could have with the House and Senate hands he's been dealt. And I believe he could continue to be a good president for a second term. However, my confidence in his ability to sell people on his capacity to perform -- on camera, unscripted, live and improvisationally -- is very badly shaken. And that terrific podcast interview? It was done remotely, and Biden likely (and wisely) had notes.

Every story about Biden's senior moments in the past week has accumulated into a deluge of bad press where Biden is being assailed by both ends of the political spectrum. The overall picture: Biden is slowing down, and he has senior moments. More and more in the last two years.

All this could be cherrypicking. You could say all of those things about anyone and emphasize their moments of tiredness and disorientation while de-emphasizing their acuity. But the public image of Biden is now that he is feeble and mentally diminished, and it's been reinforced by how few unscripted interviews Biden has given and how much his team has insulated him from uncontrolled media environments.

Biden may be able to turn it around with his upcoming interview. But if all it takes is one cold and one sleepless night for Biden to become the incoherent, unintelligible person he was on the debate night, then this just isn't going to work.

And if Biden is physically unable to be the live and on camera performer that a campaigner needs to be, then we are simply pushing forward a candidate who can't get enough votes to win.

In 2016, Democrats operated on the entitled assumption that Democrats didn't need to earn votes with a plausible and meaningful vision for how working people could have better lives under a Hillary Clinton administration. The Hillary Clinton vision was a vaguely vague vision of progressive values undermined by her actual record of support for corporations over ordinary people, for the war in Iraq that enough voters either rejected or couldn't support, leading to the Trump presidency. Slider_Quinn21 couldn't support her and blew his vote on Joe the Tiger Guy. (I'm assuming.)

In 2024, the Biden vision is a specific vision of aid and support to working people -- but led by a man whose onscreen presence and outreach conveys feeble confusion and unintelligible communication. This too, might see too many voters reject him or have no enthusiasm to support him... and as Slider_Quinn21 has pointed out, all it takes for Trump to become a dictator is 10,000 - 20,000 votes here and there across a few swing states. Slider_Quinn21 has changed tactics and would rather vote for a shaky but benign president than a strong but evil one... but let's face it, Slider_Quinn21 is the exception, not the rule.

People will, out of distaste for Democrats presenting a subfunctioning candidate and Republicans pressing for fascism, will vote third party or write in a relative's name. It's not enough to not be Trump; people's votes need to be earned actively, not passively.

I'm scared.

I hope Biden will turn things around on Friday. But what if he can't?

I know I've insulted you a lot and never really believed in you, but if you're listening, please help us, Mitt Romney. Yeah, that's how desperate I am.

497

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden's Friday interview will air Friday instead of Saturday and Sunday:
https://abc.com/news/02867c69-fefa-4807 … ry/1138628

498

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Under Slider_Quinn21's reasonable reasons and rational rationales for why Biden can't make any more mistakes... I'm forced to wonder if it would be best for Biden to resign and make Kamala Harris acting president now, and his chosen successor to campaign in the 2024 election.

It is impossible to guarantee that Biden won't get a cold. It is impossible to promise that he won't have senior moments.

He mis-speaks. He verbally conflates living and dead world leaders when describing recent discussions. He verbally conflates countries. I specify "verbally" to explain that it's due to his stutter and not due to cognitive confusion, but when he is ill, even a mild illness makes things worse and a cold makes a 60 year old seem 70 and an 80 year old seem 200.

Harris is the only financial game in town for a replacement because the Biden campaign cannot transfer their funds to anyone other than Harris for the November election. I am in love with Gretchen Whitmer (she's like a hybrid Jody/Donna from SUPERNATURAL and I pre-bought her autobiography), but Whitmer doesn't have the money to run. Gavin Newsom has never done anything to piss me off as far as I know, but he also doesn't have the money and Biden cannot, legally, turn over the campaign bank account to anyone but Harris.

Biden has served his country with honour. Biden reminds me of my grandfather, both men who served their communities with impeccable morality but some serious difficulties in verbal communication. I wouldn't have voted for my grandfather in a primary, but I would in an election. But Slider_Quinn21 has established some dire and serious perils if Biden gets so much as a cold... and people get colds.

There are things to be done to make an older man feel younger and focus better: ADHD medication, hormone replacement therapy, direct vitamin injections -- but I honestly can't imagine a man in Biden's position hasn't already reviewed each and every one of these options with his medical team.

The Bulwark has been calling for Biden to step down, which I saw only leading to chaos and disaster, but now they've put forth a strong proposal for Biden to resign now and put Kamala Harris in as acting president. By doing the job now, they argue, Harris would effectively be campaigning to be hired for the job in November.

I didn't like Joe Biden in 2020. He changed my mind and won my respect. But acting-President Kamala Harris, as laid out by The Bulwark, is a very good plan: "If Harris is running as the sitting president, she will have demonstrated that she can do the job. People will have seen her—literally—in the big chair. Trump would plotz every time he heard Harris referred to as Madame President. This is not nothing."

https://www.thebulwark.com/p/president-kamala-harris

Quinn and the Professor would always want us to have respect for a well-considered plan, and this qualifies.

I believe in Joe Biden. And Biden believes in Kamala Harris. She raged against him for his 1970s position on busing (a complex issue where Biden's votes did not age well). He was humiliated and embarrassed. He chose her as his vice president. She can do this job.

If it were up to me to choose Harris' vice-president, I would suggest Republican Mitt Romney.

Make no mistake: I loathe Mitt Romney, a businessman whose idea of success was to buy businesses, burden them with the debt of purchasing them, then laying off employees and liquiding assets to cover the debt, and then sell off what was left to line Romney's pockets with all debt suffered by the laid off employees and broken business. And then he had the gall to call himself a job creator.

But he's demonstrated enough flickers of humanity and honour in opposing Trump: voting for his impeachment, defying Trump's ego and totaltarianism, and a Harris and Romney duo would effectively net a wide coalition of anti-Trump voters and declare that the goal is to beat Trump and put country over party.

It may be a crazy idea that the Democratic National Convention rules and Romney could never tolerate. It's undoubtedly borne of my personal fascination with a weird political bromance in Canada between the Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau and the Conservative premier of Ontario, Doug Ford -- two people who were fundamentally opposed in every way but somehow became friends and partners on so many initiatives.

And it would take us back to 2012 when Temporal Flux said he'd be voting for Romney, and we would find ourselves on the same side. Because on a Harris/Romney ticket, I would vote for Romney too if I could vote in the US.

499

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I listened to the Howard Stern/biden interview from April 2024.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz45sMb4js8

I also listened to the Biden interview with ProPublica from September 2023:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZFeBHWtgzs&t=3s

I think Biden is fine, and his debate performance was due to a cold.

500

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I like Joe too. I just... don't know if Joe Biden in 2024 can win this election.

I also don't know if there are any other options.

I recall having the same opinion in 2020, when I shared this spoof Beaverton article:

Obama wholeheartedly endorses only option

Former President Barack Obama has announced his enthusiastic support for Joe Biden by endorsing him over all other current Democratic candidates.

“I cannot think of a better candidate than Joe, who is also the only candidate. Is that… have we checked that? We’re absolutely sure? Warren is definitely out? Sanders too? What about that Inslee guy, he seemed smart, is there any chance he…? No. Okay. Joe it is,” Obama said in a video he released today endorsing Biden.

Obama, whose endorsement will be critical to the Democrats’ chances of taking back the White House in November, refused to support any specific candidate during the crowded and contentious Democratic primary, instead relying on cryptic hints to steer primary voters, like “please don’t let nostalgia guide you” and “I sure hope the candidate is someone who has the best PLANS for the FUTURE and doesn’t rely solely on past associations.”

“I know Joe very well, and his accomplishments during my administration are numerous,” said Obama. “There was the time he stood behind me as I signed the Affordable Care Act, the time he sat next to me as I oversaw the mission to take out Osama bin Laden, and of course the time he held my umbrella as we got off Air Force One. If you need a president who can hold a good umbrella, Joe’s your guy.”

Obama concluded his endorsement by stating that “Joe is a [unintelligible mumbles] man. He’s the candidate we have, and that’s… great. Just great. He’s a good… uh, he’s a good… choice. Yes sir. Good choice. Excellent choice. Really [massive sigh] just, a great good choice.”

The Biden campaign is taking advantage of the publicity they’re receiving after Obama’s ringing endorsement to unveil their new campaign slogan: “Vote Biden. You have to.”
https://www.thebeaverton.com/2020/04/ob … ly-option/

I am as enthusiastic about Biden now as I was in April 2020, which is not very. But Biden changed my mind over time with his appearances and his campaign.

Maybe he'll change it again.

501

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I'm afraid. I'm scared of the Supreme Court. I'm terrified of Trump.

**

Biden is going to do an unscripted ABC interview with George Stephanopoulos on Friday, with portions to air Friday and Saturday and the full interview Sunday.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/preside … =111618360

Biden, speaking off the cuff, was heard saying at a private fundraiser in McLean, Georgia:

I wasn’t very smart. I decided to travel around the world a couple of times... shortly before the debate. I didn’t listen to my staff and I came back and then I almost fell asleep on stage. It's not an excuse, but an explanation.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-b … =111627857

Under scrutiny, I'm not sure this makes sense: Biden was indeed flying to Normandy, Italy and France and then Los Angeles, but then he was back in Washington by June 16, and he was at Camp David from June 20 - 27. That said, this is not a recorded quote, but a witness repeating what they heard, and what they were able to hear may be incomplete or missing additional statements or claims.

Who is Joe Biden? Well, this is an unscripted interview with Howard Stern in April 2024. I haven't listened to it yet, but I'm listening now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz45sMb4js8

This is another upscripted interview with ProPublica from September 2023:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZFeBHWtgzs&t=3s

502

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

A lot of people I respect said in 2016 that the presidency was not really that powerful, that American institutions would hold Trump back, that the world could survive a bad president. That's no longer true. The Supreme Court has completely overturned and broken any checks and balances. The president is now above the law.

https://www.salon.com/2024/07/01/legal- … be-a-king/

A lot of anonymously sourced claims have been coming out revealing that Joe Biden's diminished energy and sharpness have apparently been an issue since 2022. While Biden is capable and strong as an executive leading and directing his team, his ability to do public appearances has, according to these accounts, fallen severely over the last two years.

The stories are that when performing for a crowd, he tires easily, loses focus quickly, and simply isn't up to the task of publicly performing for the camera without tight time limits and a teleprompter (which his recent speeches used). The take is that he is a good president, but he is no longer a good public performer.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/0 … e-00166160

https://www.salon.com/2024/07/02/carl-b … a-one-off/

Nancy Pelosi says it's up to Biden to dispel and disprove these stories and concerns with unscripted interviews:
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2 … e-00166245

If Biden were to drop out, campaign finance laws dictate that only Kamala Harris would be able to use the Biden-Harris campaign funds to fuel a run for the presidency:
https://prospect.org/power/2024-07-02-c … -scenario/

It seems to me: if Harris lacks the stature to defeat Trump in November and since alternate Democratic candidates would lack the funds to campaign effectively, Biden is the only viable nominee, regardless of whether or not the hearsay is true. Often, voting is about choosing your preferred opponent, not your standard bearer.

And it seems to me: given the corruption of the Supreme Court, a Donald Trump win in the 2024 election would effectively be the last election as Trump's second presidency would now be empowered to hold office permanently and with any of Trump's whims and reprisals now validated as "official acts".

Which means Democrats have to support Biden regardless of his flaws, and see that Trump is once again defeated at the ballot box.

Simon Rosenberg encourages the Biden campaign to worry less and do more: to execute an aggressive ground game to get people voting by September 20, to present a new Democratic agenda to reform and renew Washington and the Supreme Court, and to use the horror that the Supreme Court just unleashed as fuel to defeat Donald Trump. And he encourages Democrat voters to vote early and volunteer.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/our- … day-1-dems

503

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

According to Simon Rosenberg, whom I respect, a 1+ lead is "a close and competitive race" due to any poll's range of error. https://x.com/SimonWDC/status/1807934309560443339

Here's a written version of Mika Brzezinski detailing all the ways Biden has crashed and rebuilt throughout his career.
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/morni … rcna159743

504

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden spoke on the wrongness of the Supreme Court... and simply declared his opposition to the idea that a president is now above the law. But didn't voice what he intends to do in response beyond campaign for his re-election. It would, of course, be foolish to declare his intentions for how to use presidential immunity without extensive review with his lawyers to see how to apply it constructively.

Can Biden use it to rebalance the Supreme Court and reverse the immunity?

505

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21, what polls are you referring to?

Also, I don't think post-debate polls are going to be meaningful in sample size or reach or accuracy for several weeks. But generally, debates have a negligible impact.

Biden is speaking tonight on the Supreme Court decision that former presidents and presidents enjoy broad immunity against prosecution and official acts can't be used as evidence in prosecuting unofficial acts... and I have to wonder if this offers any path towards Supreme Court reform if Biden effectively has total immunity to the end of his term.

506

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

A lot of different opinions on what Joe Biden should do, whether it's to repair his damaged campaign or choose a new nominee to support:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … n-00165878

507

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Mika Brzezinski has offered her take: Biden's team overscheduled him with so much travel and so many events before the debate: back to back trips to France and Italy, then to Los Angeles for fundraisers. Biden's team sent him out on onto the evening debate stage exhausted by the whole day and the weeks leading up to it:

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch … 3993029565

The next day, Biden had slept and attended a morning event.

Biden's team, Brzezinski seems to suggest, is booking him like he's 51 instead of 81, and aren't managing his energy well. Brzezinski then went through Biden's tragic personal history and how many times his political career has been declared dead and over, followed by his win upon win upon win as president.

508

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It seems to me that Biden's team knew and accepted there would be no fact checking or moderation and that Trump would lie and lie and lie and lie -- they prepared responses for Biden to deliver in these scenarios -- and then, on debate night, Biden was unable to deliver any of the rehearsed replies, delivering completely different answers than what they'd all planned and practiced.

The question is why?

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Spoilers from Superman & Lois

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

So at the end of the latest episode, Kyle comes to the farm to confront Clark, and Clark ends up having to reveal his identity so he can woosh off and save the day.

...has that really never happened to him?  I would imagine it would happen all the time with other parents at school, commitments at work, or other situations where Clark is one on one with someone who refuses to leave.  I would think Clark would be more prepared for that because I would think most people wouldn't take "we have to deal with this later" as an excuse.

I would think Clark would be able to superspeed and "vulcan neck pinch" someone or something.

Sorry for the long delay. I didn't have time to give SUPERMAN AND LOIS my full attention until the past week when I was stuck at home with COVID.

I have to say, this situation did not make a lot of sense visually. Clark could have refused to talk to Kyle, gone back into the house, supersped out the back, run a few miles, and then flown into the sky.

There was really no reason for Clark to use his superstrength and superspeed in front of Kyle. This was a bit forced.

510

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

This Washington Post article is paywalled, but eight Biden aides spoke anonymously with the Post. They report that their debate prep for Biden had prepared for every single question Biden ended up facing on debate night. Their practice sessions were detailed and meticulous, and readily anticipated pretty much every topic and situation.

In the sessions, the president still spoke haltingly. He sometimes confused facts and figures. He tripped over words and meandered. Debate prep would not fix his stutter or make him appear any younger, aides knew. Every topic he was asked about Thursday, he had practiced answers for — including the final one about his age.

Biden's team knew what was coming, and they had planned for all of it with the president.

So aides were bewildered by his performance. Many felt they had never seen him collapse so dramatically. After all, Biden was a veteran of numerous debates — as a senator, vice-presidential nominee and presidential candidate. And they did not understand why he gave an entirely different answer on the age question than the one they spent more than a week perfecting.

But with another debate scheduled for September — a Biden campaign spokesman said the president would not withdraw from it — aides and allies are scrutinizing the president’s preparation for last week’s debate to figure out if they missed signs of what would unfold in CNN’s Atlanta studio.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … ing-event/

511

(21 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Try contacting Thomas at slidecage.com. He dissuaded me from buying a used copy at a bookstore six years ago when I saw it for sale, so it's really on him that I can't help you out here.

512

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I vaguely recall seeing Welling in the first 10 minutes of a Netflix/Hallmark movie that I elected not to finish watching because it looked awful. He was wearing a lab coat and he was a doctor in a hospital and my first thought was that Clark was undercover on assignment for the Daily Planet and Lois was hiding behind one of the counters. Tom was standing so tall and authoritatively that I just kept seeing Clark.

**

I finally got around to watching the Season 3 premiere of SUPERMAN AND LOIS and I was struck by how in the crazy Superman fight scene between Superman and a superpowered nutjob, Tyler Hoechlin's Superman is quick to move the fight out of downtown Metropolis and into an unmanned construction zone. Little things like these make Zack Snyder and Henry Cavill look worse and worse.

513

(21 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Oh. Well, I'd suggest you get in touch with Matt. That was really before my time. Also, I am not a SLIDERS historian. I am a SLIDERS fanfic writer.

514

(21 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I thought that Paul Jackson quote came from Matt having some conversations with Jackson which Matt elected to put into various entries of the episode guides rather than writing up a full interview.

515

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Is Joe Biden in 2024 as weak a candidate as Hillary Clinton in 2016? That debate made him look weak. But we'll have to see how it shakes out in the polls of the next several weeks, and the only polls I would trust are through Simon Rosenberg at Hopium.

Would someone else be stronger? The unfortunate reality is that incumbent presidential candidates who drop out leave a newcomer in a weak and chaotic position on track to lose.

516

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden gave another great speech in NYC:
https://www.youtube.com/live/B7NyV_EENF … &t=597

Biden tries to calm nervous donors:
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/2 … p-00165933

Biden insider confesses that following the debate, Biden felt "humiliated, devoid of confidence and painfully aware that the physical images of him at the debate — eyes staring into the distance, mouth agape — will live beyond his presidency, along with a performance that at times was meandering, incoherent and difficult to hear. 'It’s a mess,' this person said."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e … rcna159591

ireactions is fond of Joe Biden and shakes nervously.

517

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah. About that cold. A cold might make a 40 year old look and sound 60. Was Joe's cold, at 81, making him look and sound like he was 200 years old?

I've been watching Joe Biden pretty closely five years. I've seen him work past word blocks and substitute incorrect words and names. I've watched his appearances in the last three months. I have never, ever heard Biden sound as hoarse or look as confused or disoriented as he did in his first 2024 presidential election debate.

I have, however, heard myself sound as awful and look as confused as Biden did; the past week, I've had COVID. Seven vaccinations are apparently enough to keep me out of the hospital but not from getting sick. My cough syrup makes me drowsy, the lack of sleep makes me hazy, the agony of my sore throat and the Advil that barely dulls it makes me shaky. I do not speak well. My mouth hangs open when I'm not speaking because my nose is too congested to otherwise breathe. My voice has become a tired mutter for the past several days.

I sound old and tired. I sound like Joe on debate night.

The next day at his rally, Joe was loud and fiery, but he coughed periodically, like his doctor had prescribed him some steroids to get his throat and nose clear enough to shout and yell as needed, but there was still some airway irritation.

Joe is 81, but a cold without the right medication could make him seem centuries older whereas a more-capably medicated cold would make him sound... well, younger and more energetic. The wheezy fellow of the debate was not the booming statesman of the rally the next day.

I hope I sound like Joe at his rally in the next few days.

518

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's a fair question. Why is the Democratic nominee someone so shaky and past his prime? Are we looking at another Hillary Clinton situation where Democrats are supporting someone who simply isn't capable?

Before the debate, a lot of pundits whom I respect remarked that Joe Biden is pretty good at politics and pretty good at being president.

In September 2023, Franklin Foer wrote that Joe Biden is good at politics:
https://www.salon.com/2023/09/13/joe-bi … klin-foer/

In March 2023, Dylan Matthews wrote on Vox that Joe Biden is pretty good at being president and should run again:
https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/3/1/2 … ala-harris

Today, Franklin Foer has reversed his tune:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar … te/678823/

And Vox.com is filled with articles saying Biden should step down.

I don't know. In 2023, Biden seemed like the best bet to beat Donald Trump again. But that debate was shook me up, and shook a lot of people up, cold or no cold.

519

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Simon Rosenberg at Hopium Chronicles points out via Lawrence O'Donnell: two-thirds of voters didn't watch Biden's disastrous debate, which strikes me as peering out awkwardly from a car crash and saying, well, nobody saw it, so it's not that bad.

Simon Rosenberg: In politics you have good days, and bad days. There is a long way to go in this election, an election that for all intents and purposes started this week and is today close and competitive, with us I believe more likely to win. My basic take on 2024 hasn’t changed, and if anything the Trump I saw on Thursday night looked far more extreme, bat-shit crazy, and beatable than I expected.

I was disappointed with Biden’s performance on Thursday, and I think the campaign needs to spend meaningful time figuring out how their big debate gambit backfired and what it means going forward. Yes, our job got a bit harder this week. But today, June 29th, 2024, I wake up knowing that over the next 4+ months I would much rather be us than them.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/lawr … -up-2-more

Maybe he's right.

520

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Pretty much every media agency is calling for Biden to step down.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/2 … e-00165914

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … t-00165917

It may blow over. It's pretty clear to me that the mumbling, hoarse, incoherent Biden of the debate was due to illness, but the rest of the world may not see it that way. Grizzlor certainly doesn't, and I don't blame him.

The full version of his fiery post-debate rally speech is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHJoewM3WfU

521

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

A post-debate Joe Biden seems to have regained his voice for a North Carolina rally and sounds normal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHJoewM3WfU

Joe Biden:

I know: I'm not a young man. To state the obvious.

I don't walk as easy as I used to.

I don't speak as smoothly as I used to.

I don't debate as well as I used to.

But I know what I do know:

I know how to tell the truth.

I know right from wrong.

And I know how to do this job. I know how to get things done. I know, like millions of Americans know: when you get knocked down, you get back up.

If the Biden we saw at debate was the Biden that his team is working with daily, they would never have gone for an early debate. The debate was an aberration of illness and deeply unfortunate timing.

522

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden was sick. At a later Waffle House appearance, he was asked if he were sick and he said he had a sore throat. He sounded like me right now. I'm having trouble breathing through my nose right now due to congestion, so my mouth hangs open. But I have the luxury of staying in my bedroom.

But it was still a really bad performance that made him look aged and worn out. The Democratic social media is blowing up with calls for Biden to decline the Democratic nomination and even former Republican-turned Democrats Steve Schmidt (Lincoln Project co-creator) and The Bulwark are strongly advising that Biden step down. Vox proposed that a refresh could reinvigorate Democrats: https://www.vox.com/politics/357876/bid … wn-atlanta

Simon Rosenberg says Biden was sick, had a bad night, and advises that people continue to, as he says, "worry less and do more". I hope that's true. But optics matter. Biden came off as sickly and weak. https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/joe- … sident-who

As QuinnSlidr notes: Biden has sounded totally fine in the last three months, especially in his State of the Union, so his bad performance was due to his health on this specific night, but it was still a terrible night on a national stage.

It may not matter. Presidential debates have a neglible effect on the actual election. Biden just needs to put in another State of the Union level performance somewhere for this debate to be forgotten. But the debate was bad.

523

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Grizzlor wrote:

Biden is losing on the vast majority of polls, some are stunningly bad.  I read Rosenberg's Hopium thing, he is well meaning, and I concur that the polling is bad because it's way too Trumpy in who they're actually sampling.  That being said, I'm sorry, but they're not THAT far off, and not in the quantity.  aka they can't all be wrong, it's just math.

The consistent overperformance of Democrats in actual elections means that polls are that wrong; polls aren't results.

Grizzlor wrote:

Biden is horse and stammering badly.

I do not see how Biden is the nominee.  His campaign claims he had a cold???  GTFO.  I warned about this months and months ago.  His largest hurdle was looking entirely incompetent on immigration, Afghanistan, and inflation, and Trump absolutely buried him with it.  Biden's retorts were mumbled and frankly it was startling to watch.  How can anyone seriously consider Biden for another four years after appearing like this?  He should have been replaced a year ago on the campaign.  Jill Biden, if she loves her husband, has to take him out of this campaign.  For his own dignity.  Joe Biden may be very good at making decisions, but you MUST be able to communicate in a campaign, and he is completely incapable of that now.

Yes, you were saying that Biden should step down based on the clickbait reports the Robert Hur report, saying, "It's over.  Biden has to step aside.  The special counsel describes him as effectively an old geezer who soon will forget his own name.  I do not know what other RED flag is needed at this point???"

After the Hur report was exposed as a misleading fraud by actual transcripts, you declared, "As for Hur, look, his comments even at face value are basically worthless.  He found no evidence of wrongdoing, end stop, everything else he wrote should have been discarded.  The problem is the MEDIA.  They blew up what he said."

Biden put forth a commanding performance in the State of the Union; his Democrat detractors were silent, then he put forward a hoarse presence in this debate and now they've gone back to the post-Hur hysteria. People like this don't have any real positions or convictions or beliefs; they're just reacting to whatever clickbait last triggered them.

Should Biden be replaced? He's certainly not my choice for the Democratic candidate, but replacing him at this point seems like a fantasy. I'd certainly rather see Gretchen Whitmer or Andrew Yang than Biden.

Incumbents are always rusty. Obama blew his first debate against Romney too.

Does this matter? I honestly doubt presidential debates have more than a negligible effect. People who watch them already know how they're going to vote.

524

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Biden clearly has a cold.

He sounds like me. I currently have COVID.

525

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Kind of scared of this debate.

526

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't think your memory is off, but I would offer some nuances. You may think I'm contradicting you at first, but once you get to the end of this, you'll find that I agree with you.

Speaking strictly in terms of the writing: the SMALLVILLE version of Clark Kent's character didn't hold together very coherently. The most glaring fault in the way Clark was written throughout the series was actually summed up by you when you remarked, "Throughout Season 8, Clark is trying so hard to save Davis Bloom from his fate as Doomsday. If Clark had tried as hard to save Lex as he tried to save Davis, I don't think Lex would have gone evil."

For most of Seasons 1 - 7, Clark's confidence in human nature seems nearly non-existent. Even when he loses his powers, he maintains The Secret towards Lex; he joins a football team of bullies and psychopaths; he has no dedicated ambition to use his power to save people and never seems to go on patrol -- there is something very lacksidasical and callous about how someone with Clark's powers self-isolates on a farm for most of Season 7. The only thing he seems to care about is Lana.

Season 8 rebooted Clark's character significantly to who he probably should have been by Season 2: he is actively pursuing his goals of serving the world as a superpowered first responder, he is going on patrol, he is building a network of allies and support staff, and Lana is in his past.. However, this drastic improvement also created some oddities in character-continuity.

In Seasons 1- 7 Clark having killed any number of supervillains by throwing them into sharp objects or turning their powers on them or heat visioning them or electrocuting them in the heat of combat. Season 8 abruptly has Clark not only declare that he doesn't kill, but acts like that's always been the case, particularly when Clark judges Oliver Queen as morally bankrupt for (supposedly) blowing up Lex Luthor with Luthor's own bomb, to the point of kicking Oliver off the Justice League (only for everyone on the League to take Oliver's side once Clark isn't looking).

The result is that Clark looks like a hypocrite even though, paradoxically, this was probably the first time the writers had really tried to stay true to the comic book character. It's very strange: the show consistently insists that Clark believes in the decency of all human beings and has a high moral standard, but in actuality, Clark is distant and aloof and guarded and didn't practice in Seasons 1 - 7 what he preaches in Season 8.

Henry Cavill's character seems to have all of the flaws described above: Clark kills in the heat of combat and if angry, he might well do it again. He fights with rage and fury when his mother or Lois are threatened and is otherwise tightly wound and coiled up. As a child, Clark saved a schoolbus full of children and was told by his father that perhaps he should have let them all drown.

Clark's father was later caught in a tornado and commanded Clark to stand by and do nothing to save him lest his powers be exposed to the public; Clark complied. These experiences have left Clark doubtful and shaken, untrusting and suspicious of others. His father didn't trust the world to treat Clark well or to see his powers used for good.

When Clark throws a punch against a superpowered alien invader, it devastates small town buildings, shatters skyscrapers. In MAN OF STEEL, Clark is undoubtedly surrounded by 200,000 dead people in the wreckage of the fight with Zod when he flirts with Lois and kisses her, implying a certain disconnection from human experience.

We could assume that, in MAN OF STEEL, Clark spent weeks after the Kryptonian attack digging out bodies and survivors and rebuilding the city just as he was trying to find survivors of the Capitol in the ULTIMATE EDITION of BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN... but we never see it and it's never discussed.

And, as with SMALLVILLE, this version of Clark was drastically rebooted into a distinctly altered personality. The depiction of Clark in JUSTICE LEAGUE under Joss Whedon's direction and writing is noticeably very different: Clark in JUSTICE LEAGUE is indulgent, happy to let some little boys interview him for their podcast, and answering all their questions with thought and sincerity.

He describes kindly how the S-insignia is not an S, but a river, that winds and flows, representing the flow of hope. When asked what his favourite thing is about Earth, Clark genuinely ponders the question and smiles brightly as he answers.

Later, Clark bursts into the battle against Steppenwolf, but just as quickly flees when he hears the cries of civilians in danger and turns his attention to them first, engaging in a friendly competition with the Flash to see who can save more people.

Ultimately, the writing of Tom Welling's Clark and Henry Cavill's Clark, at least to me -- have a lot of the same problems. Both depictions suffer from a distinct lack of proactive compassion and empathy whether it's for guest-stars, extras and potential collateral damage, or their local communities. They are focused on juvenile soap opera crap (Lana or Lois) instead of saving lives.

Both versions of Clark display little to no trust in human nature, hide from their problems and struggles, are motivated by a fixation on a woman, and are passive until they are reactive. However, Welling's Clark is a defensive fighter who seeks to contain and immobilize while Cavill's Clark seems to fight with decades of pent-up frustration and fury.

But -- that's the *writing*. The memories that Slider_Quinn21 has shared of Tom Welling and Henry Cavill seem to be less about the writing and rather the impression that these two actors left on Slider_Quinn21's mind. And in terms of the performances, these two actors could not be more different.

Henry Cavill is a very aloof, guarded actor who, when playing troubled characters (like Clark in a Zack Snyder movie), holds his characters at a distance from their actions and their supporting casts. Cavill's characters are burying their secrets, insecurities, demons and fears away from the world while still bearing the weight of them. Cavill adopts a distant and somber presence for this.

The result is that Cavill's Clark can seem really joyless -- except when Cavill is performing a Joss Whedon script where he has to save civilians and tell jokes, and suddenly, Cavill's aloofness is replaced by a glowingly warm, commanding charisma.

Tom Welling, however, is not aloof or guarded. Tom a paradox: he is an introvert who wears his heart on his sleeve. Tom is a low-key, quiet soul who likes to buy out the stock of children's toy stores and spend weekends in his garage putting them in gift wrap so that he can distribute them to low income families come Christmas.  Tom's inherent thoughtfulness, compassion and decency of character is not a performance, but a genuine expression of his true self.

As a result, Tom Welling's screen presence exudes a superhuman level of patience, goodwill, trust, caring, kindness and belief in the fundamental decency and positive potential of all human beings. There is a delicate caring to Tom's onscreen persona that the camera picks up: the carefulness with which he walks and speaks to others, the humility with which he listens, the patience that he conveys, that makes Tom seem superhumanly kind even when the writing isn't on his side.

MAN OF STEEL and BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN 'suffered' from excessive budgets where Superman's powers are most memorably rendered in Superman punching supervillains, smashing them through walls and buildings and cities. The most memorable images of Henry Cavill's Clark are him flying and punching as buildings (presumably filled with people) are reduced to rubble. This does not create the impression of a great humanitarian.

Despiet Joss Whedon's efforts, Henry Cavill's Superman will be remembered as a cold, distant, troubled Superman of war.

SMALLVILLE had the 'advantage' of a low budget at a time when digital effects were very costly. As a result, SMALLVILLE was limited to only showing Clark's powers in one specific area: the supersave. While Clark was not very proactive in Seasons 1 - 7, he did use his powers at least once an episode, and Clark's feats were always in rescuing people: shielding passengers from their exploding cars, ripping innocent people out of the path of bullets, pulling people out of crashing trains, catching girders before they pulped a human being, yanking people away from fires, catching people as they fell, etc..

As a result, the most memorable images of Clark across 10 seasons is Clark rescuing someone whether it's his parents or or Lex or Chloe or Pete or Lana or some random guest star of the week. Saving people is what Clark did most frequently onscreen in SMALLVILLE. Saving people is where SMALLVILLE put the bulk of the budget. As a result, the common memory people have of SMALLVILLE's Clark is that he is a compassionate protector and rescuer, and the fact that he was a little lax and uncommitted to the job before Season 8 is easily forgotten.

And ultimately, while the first seven seasons of writing let SMALLVILLE down, I think Tom Welling and the special effects artists put in the work to ensure that SMALLVILLE's Clark will always be remembered and loved as for their vision of Clark Kent as a superhuman paramedic, firefighter, first responder and as a character of empathy and compassion.

Ultimately, I think both Welling and Cavill suffered from writing that didn't suit them or their roles, but Welling spent more time saving people and had a more naturally compassionate screen presence (because that's what he's like in real life), so he seems much nicer than Cavill.

It would feel a lot easier to ask Tom Welling's Clark to do your podcast than to ask Henry Cavill's... although Henry Cavill's Clark will do your podcast too, which demonstrates how if the writing is there, the actor can incorporate it into the character.

527

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I should note, Slider_Quinn21, that orange flavoured Gatorade is Joe Biden's drink of choice.

528

(34 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've been enjoying the Doctor under Russell T. Davies' return.

One episode, "Rogue", seems to have really had a positive response. It features the Doctor in a romance with a man in a Regency era storyline. I don't really relate to stories of men loving men; I am also not a fan of Regency fiction. However, just because something isn't tailored to my personal obsessions does not mean it is bad. In addition... I've come to realize how much can hurt someone to not see themselves onscreen. And men who love men deserve to see themselves in their TV shows and movies, and the Doctor, being an alien and genderfluid, is easily bisexual (if not more). I didn't relate to "Rogue" and it did not speak to me, but I felt it was *important*.

529

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, if you're nervous, do something about it. Something small and achieveable. Mail a pre-debate Gatorade and a Red Bull to the White House, Slider_Quinn21. :-)

530

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Even FOX News thinks Trump is on a losing streak.
https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/bide … ead-in-fox

531

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

How does Tom Welling's Clark differ from Henry Cavll's Clark in your view?

Your thoughts interest me.

532

(21 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, you can get the next one.

Also, while looking, I noticed that Sabrina Lloyd's "The Girl With Something Extra" interview ( https://earthprime.com/articles/the-gir … ing-extra/ ) describes her pre-SLIDERS career where she starred in an movie on HBO where she plays a teenaged lesbian who wants to go with her girlfriend to prom. That was actually an episode of an anthology TV show, not a film, and you can see the episode here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjPG0QVsFdI&t

533

(21 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

https://earthprime.com/articles/wonder-of-worlds/

Let us know when the book is out!

I have been really busy, and been stalled on my own epub production for my stuff. I'm glad one of us is making progress.

534

(686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've always found every MISSION IMPOSSIBLE, even the ones I didn't like, were very stagey and writerly. Which is fine for me because MISSION IMPOSSIBLE is about confidence tricks and deceit and staged scenarios to manipulate marks. I'm not sure what you're referring to by fourth wall breaking.

535

(686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

The writing was just not as good on that film than some of the recent in the series.

What was wrong about the writing for you? I thought it was as strong as it had ever been, and had the same weaknesses and inconsistencies the series has always had.

536

(686 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

https://i.ibb.co/kMzyCRG/the-slider.jpg

I kind of want to see this movie.

https://www.amazon.ca/Slider-Bruce-Davi … 072ZM74YW/

537

(3,520 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Well, it depends on whether you're looking at aggregate polls averaged and thrown off by Republican-funded polls, or looking at independent polls.

https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/5-po … -new-biden

538

(55 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Here's my story to give Caitlin a happy ending while leaving the post-Season 2 continuity unchanged.

Frozen Time

Caitlin is living a wonderful life in Montreal with Peter: a peaceful marriage, running a bar, and Peter working as a paramedic. But her nightmares remind her of a virus-ravaged future. And Caitlin starts to realize that time around her seems to run in a loop and oddly, she isn’t aging. Despite 40 years of happiness, she remains frozen in time. She realizes that she is trapped in a mysterious pocket dimension.

Peter admits the truth. He explains that he intentionally trapped them both here.

At the end of Season 2, Peter was crushed by his failure to retrieve Caitlin from the future. With Hiro's help, he repeatedly revisited the pivotal moment from "Powerless" where Peter prevented the viral outbreak -- and erased the future where Caitlin was stranded.

Peter had no way to find her again. His power and Hiro's did not allow him to traverse parallel timelines. He asked Hiro for help.

Peter and Hiro tried stopping Peter from stopping the pandemic, restoring the viral-ravaged future from which they could save Caitlin. But then they couldn't stop the pandemic at all, which would turn Caitlin's future into their present. They were forced to reset time to the way it was before.

Peter and Hiro tried delaying Peter's confrontation with Hiro and then Adam, giving Peter more time to visit the future to find Caitlin, minutes after Peter had failed to rescue her. But two time travel events in proximity created a burst of temporal momentum that caused them to return weeks after Adam had already unleashed the pandemic, and it was too late to stop it. They were forced to reset time to the way it was before.

Peter and Hiro tried delaying Peter's confrontation, then retrieving Caitlin at a later point in the future. But at that later point, Caitlin had already been infected; bringing her home would again turn the present into Caitlin's future. They were forced to reset time to the way it was before.

Desperate, Peter collaborated with Hiro in a fourth effort, combining their time-travel abilities. Together, they created a pocket dimension where Caitlin’s disease progression was looped, never getting better or worse, and where Peter and Caitlin could enjoy a happy life within a temporal bubble of bliss.

For 40 years, Peter and Caitlin thrived within this time bubble. But now it’s collapsing, and Caitlin leaving the bubble means her death.

Caitlin is saddened that her life has been cut short by a loop and mourns the lost potential, lost opportunities and lost life. Peter offers to take her wherever she wants to go for her last few hours of life; the loop will prevent her from infecting for a few hours after leaving the bubble.

Caitlin asks Peter to take them to shortly before they first met: when Peter was an amnesiac in Ireland, chained up in a storage container. Caitlin plants information to alter events, ensuring that Elle, the superhuman who was hunting Peter, and who has electrical superpowers, will find Peter before Caitlin's brother came across Peter.

As a result, in this altered timeline, Caitlin never meets Peter, never goes to the future, never gets stranded, never gets sick. Instead, the role of Peter's companion is now occupied by Elle, who accompanies Peter into the future and whose powers enable her to not be separated from Peter.

In this new timeline, Caitlin lives a life untouched by Peter’s influence, while Peter forgets her entirely.

The story concludes as Peter returns to the moment he first attempted to save Caitlin: the press conference in “Powerless.”

The altered timeline erases Peter's memory of her, explaining why he never mentioned Caitlin again.

And so, in the folds of time, Caitlin’s fate finds resolution, even if it remains hidden from the world.

539

(55 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I just want to say: listening to Tom and Cory recap HEROES is vastly preferable to actually rewatching it.

**

I would note that HEROES and FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS in 2007 were dealing with different narrative situations. I'm not super-familiar with sports, but I assume that sports matches and a pandemic are events that take place on pretty different scales. It may work for football games to happen offscreen. That wouldn't work for an end-of-the-world situation (although MILLENNIUM tried to wrap up a global pandemic between Seasons 2 - 3 and to laughable results).

HEROES had planned a 24 episode arc for Season 2: the first 11 episodes were Volume 2, "Generations", and revealed that superhumans, including Sylar, were becoming infected with a debilitating virus. Peter and his girlfriend Caitlin (Katie Carr) accidentally visited the near future in which the virus had begun infecting normal humans, and 93 percent of the human race had died. Peter lost control of his time travel powers and was sent back to the present before he could bring Caitlin back with him. Episode 10 revealed that the legendary samurai Takezo Kensei, also the immortal known as Adam Monroe (David Anders), had created the Shanti Virus as a means of population control and sought to unleash it. Monroe would later goad and taunt Peter that the woman he loved was trapped in a terrible future.

"Generations" was to end with Episode 11 in which Peter would fail to stop the virus from breaking out, heralding the future he saw and in which Caitlin was stranded. The town of Odessa, Texas would be quarantined. Nathan, announcing the situation to the press, would fall ill and collapse.

Then we'd have Volume 3, "Exodus", across Episodes 12 - 24. The heroes would try to contain the virus while Peter would trying to regain control of his time travel powers before changing the future, so that he could save Caitlin before that future timeline was erased.

When the HEROES creators realized that they would have to stop production with Season 2, Episode 11, they were facing a difficult situation. Due to their shooting schedule and contractual agreements, even if the strike were resolved, HEROES would be filming Season 3, not the second half of Season 2. The viral outbreak storyline was not something they could cover with a time gap and references to offscreen events. It needed to be a current and immediate situation if the story were to be told at all. Also critical to the story were Caitlin and Adam Monroe, which was another problem.

With the strike and the hiatus, HEROES had lost full access to David Anders, whose Adam Monroe was intended as the primary villain of Season 2. And HEROES' contract with Katie Carr to play Caitlin expired as well, and my understanding is that once Season 2 shut down, Carr was travelling between the United States, England and Australia, engaged in a modelling career and studying screenwriting in London. The bookings and studio sets HEROES had made for locations to render the viral quarantine of Odessa, Texas were also lost.

They'd lost the ability to use David Anders as the primary villain, they'd lost Katie Carr, they'd lost their preproduction work, they'd lost the immediacy of following up on Episode 11 a week later. With all this, the HEROES creators felt it simply didn't make sense to end Episode 11 on a clifffhanger and do the "Exodus" viral outbreak storyline in Season 3 in 6 - 12 months' time. They had no way of following up on it properly with all their losses.

If they'd done "Exodus" for Season 3, they would have had to write David Anders out with minimal appearances; they would have been unable to feature the Caitlin character significantly or at all. They would be following up on a viral outbreak cliffhanger that had aired 10 months ago, losing the opportunity for Season 3 to offer a clean and clear jumping on point for viewers as is expected for the season premiere of a major network show.

Given the multiple characters and arcs unfolding simultaneously in Season 2, it was a lot to ask a 2007 - 2008 audience to remember. HEROES was only available to stream via NBC Direct for US residents and wouldn't be available on iTunes until 2009.

Even as recently as 2021: I watched THE FLASH where the first three episodes of Season 7 were devoted to the mirror dimension plotline of Season 6, a season that had been cut short due to the pandemic hiatus. Like HEROES, THE FLASH was off the air for 10 months. Unlike HEROES, THE FLASH didn't (and couldn't) wrap up its truncated season and had to devote the first three episodes of Season 7 to resolving Season 6.

I was a devoted fan of THE FLASH, and I watched Season 7's first three episodes with great confusion. It had been 10 months since Season 6 and I had largely forgotten all the details of the storyline. I couldn't remember who Eva McCulloch was or what she wanted or how the artificial speed force tied into it or how mirror duplicates were involved. I couldn't remember. And I was too busy to rewatch Season 6. Due to limited recall, THE FLASH's sixth season opening was baffling to me.

And THE FLASH in Season 6 had a lot less going on than HEROES of Season 2, so I would posit that the average viewer would have found Season 3 of HEROES even more confusing than Season 6 of THE FLASH had HEROES attempted to do the "Exodus" storyline 10 months delayed.

I think the HEROES team saw that the virus plot was not something they would be able to follow up on effectively, so they reshot Episode 11 slightly so that Peter would stop the virus, and the replacement cliffhanger wouldn't require the audience to remember the Shanti Virus storyline when Season 3 premiered.

And on the whole, the creators' predictions seem to have been pretty accurate. David Anders was tied up with an independent movie when Season 3 started and had to be written out fast; Katie Carr was, I believe, in Australia. Ignoring Caitlin was a bad option, but there were no good (or available) options to bring her back.

From a writing standpoint, it was also difficult to address the emotional fallout of Caitlin's lack of fate. But the strike made it impossible to film anything new with Katie Carr for Episode 11; even if they attempted to save her with dialogue referring to her being offscreen, how could they save her from a timeline that was gone? Given that Peter couldn't control his time travel powers and was fighting Hiro at the end of Season 2, what options had there been to resolve Caitlin's storyline before the virus future was revented? Addressing Caitlin was a problem; ignoring Caitlin was a problem. HEROES is about ordinary people in extraordinary situations. Peter Petrelli's character is defined by his empathy and how he connects with people, reflected in his power of empathetic ability replication. Caitlin is an ordinary person, so leaving her in a horrific future undermines HEROES' entire mission statement.

Caitlin is an innocent person whom Peter loved, so Peter not saving her undermines Peter's characterization. Peter would either seem callous for dismissing her situation or be shattered by his inability to return to that future to save her, which would tie his character up in a distant storyline. As a result, the writers made the displeasing -- but understandable -- decision to simply never refer to it again: to bring it up would either undermine Peter or overcomplicate Peter. Their expectation was that when Season 3 premiered in September 2008, the majority of the audience would have forgotten about Caitlin, a character who had not been seen onscreen since November 2007, almost 11 months.

So, there were really no good options here: ignore Caitlin and move on from the virus plot and seem callous to anyone who remembered the character. Focus on Caitlin and the virus plot and Season 3's first impression would be that it was still mired in a storyline that, without immediacy and recent memory, was now difficult to follow and remember and also difficult to film due to losing the guest actors.

They chose to ignore Caitlin and hoped the audience would too... and I can't say the alternative would been any better. So I forgive the writers for choosing the simplest bad option over the complicated and confusing bad option. And I think they forgave themselves.

What HEROES should have done, however, which they never did -- they should have devoted one of their many webcomics to resolving Caitlin's story so that fans who did remember and care about Caitlin wouldn't think poorly of Peter for never mentioning her again.

I would note that the Charlie character (Jayma Mays) in Season 1 was really beloved as Hiro's love interest. She even inspired a tie-in novel, SAVING CHARLIE. But Charlie's character was unsustainable for the show as a regular, and she died a terrible fate. She wasn't mentioned in Seasons 2 or 3.

And yet, the HEROES creators brought the character back in Season 4 to give her a (somewhat) happy ending. I think they would have liked to do something similar for Caitlin... but how?

I imagine the reason the creators didn't at least produce a comic book is because with the viral outbreak timeline having been erased, the writers were at a loss for how to even find Caitlin. Even in a comic book: how were they supposed to get Peter back to that future timeline that was no longer available, even to a time traveller?

I myself have needed 17 years to come up with a solution...

540

(55 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Catching up on REWATCH PODCAST with Tom and Cory reviewing Season 2 of HEROES. https://therewatchpodcast.libsyn.com/

It's funny -- Season 2 of HEROES was in 2007. It was 17 years ago. But I still feel really sad about the Caitlin character.

Since it was 17 years ago, I should probably explain: Caitlin was an Irish barmaid with no superpowers, whom Peter Petrelli romanced in Season 2. They accidentally visited a future timeline where Earth was ravaged by a terrible virus. Peter and Caitlin were separated, and when he tried to save her, Peter accidentally travelled back to the present day. Peter couldn't go back for Caitlin until he'd acquired a cure for the virus and regained control of his time travel powers.

Originally, Season 2 was going to have Peter return to the future and Caitlin would re-enter the storyline. Unfortunately, due to the writers strike of 2007, the 24 episode order got cut to 11 episodes. The 11th episode was originally a mid-season cliffhanger with the virus being unleashed.

But when the writers saw that the strike was coming, they realized they had no idea when they'd be back on the air after their 11th episode; they hadn't even started filming the 12th. With the likelihood that it could be as much as a year before HEROES could air another episode, the creators decided to reshoot their 11th episode cliffhanger. They instead made Season 2, Episode 11 a season finale where the virus was contained, averting the future of viral contagion... which also erased the future timeline in which Caitlin was trapped.

Then it became difficult to follow up on Caitlin. Season 2 came to its abbreviated end in December 2007, the airdate for Season 3's premiere was September 2008. Heroes had been off the air for 10 months, as opposed to a usual 2 - 3 month summer break. Ten months was way too long to reopen virus plotline. Which meant the show couldn't revisit Caitlin.

When asked about Caitlin in pre-Season 3 publicity and if her character would reappear or even be mentioned, showrunner Tim Kring said, "No, we passed it. We leapfrogged it," explaining the virus plot was just not something they could revisit, and understandably so. A season premiere, especially after 10 month hiatus, needs a clean slate. I understand the decision.

And I know it's ridiculous to still feel sad about it. But it bothers me.