481

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I don't know if the Trump supporters would come around or not.  He might have a proxy run as a small party candidate, which would accomplish the same thing as him being the Republican nominee.  Plus they'd be throwing out every shred of legitimacy the primary process has.  How will they be able to justify all the tax dollars spent on primaries that don't mean anything?

482

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yesterday Trump was praising Saddam Hussein as a great leader based on the number of people he killed.  That's much worse than Hillary Clinton participating in the routine deceit that all elected officials engage in.

483

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Hillary's only excuse now is that she was utterly incompetent.  And she's probably gonna be president.  It's unspeakable.


Yeah, because as bad as she is the Republicans have nominated someone even worse

484

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump is already fading.  The latest ABC poll has him down 12 points, and that's with the Bernie Bros still showing as undecided.  This could be a blowout so bad it would make Alf Landon blush.

Those rules are clearly aimed at things like Star Trek:New Voyages, that have used unproduced TOS and TNG scripts and featured appearances from TOS cast members.

486

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump is willing to take the RNC's money.  They've established joint fund raising committees.  He gave up his self funding pledge as soon as he clinched the nomination.  Problem is that many of the standard GOP donors won't give for him.

487

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

This is the lull period in the election cycle.  It won't pick back up in earnest until around Labor Day.

488

(4 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

Explaining elections is fine, but arguing for lowering the voting age without teaching kids why voting is for adults is just sloppy.

The West Wing did a nice job of presenting a balanced argument regarding children's suffrage.

The Guardian.  Yes, it opened the can of worms that eventually led to my most hated episode (Dust), but it was totally worth it.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

So maybe AI was responsible for WWIII, and we vowed never to go down that road again

When in doubt, blame SkyNet wink

491

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Low turnout usually comes when people don't care about the candidates.  That's not the case here.  The lowest turnout ever was in 1996, when the race wasn't close between a reasonably well liked incumbent and a has been challenger who excited no one.

492

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Some of the Bernie Bros will stay home or vote smaller party.  Some may even go for Trump.  The overwhelming majority will vote Clinton.

Trump is busy going back on almost all the things that made him popular to begin with.  He's taking money from all the big GOP donors, including people like Adelson that he previously trashed.  He tried to walk back the Muslim travel ban, going from hectoring "We have no choice" before South Carolina to meekly saying it was just a "suggestion".  He's distanced himself from his own tax plan, now saying he wants tax increases.

493

(4 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

We're not headed towards enforced drug use, but wider re-legalization of mild stuff like marijuana appears inevitable.

494

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It goes to the House, not the Senate, if no one has a majority.

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote

This was Sanders' only shot.  He'll have the same difficulties running as a third party that we discussed about Trump.  Sore Loser and Simultaneous Registration laws would keep him off of the ballot in almost all states.

495

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Yeah, and then they didn't make any solo Killian toys anyway, so being female wouldn't have mattered in terms of toy sales.

496

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Marvel has pushed back the Captain Marvel movie in favor of films with male leads twice already and probably will do so more times.  They don't appear particularly eager to make movies with female leads.

497

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Presidents, like quarterbacks, get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go badly.  The president has little impact on the economy.

Season 5 only has two Kromagg episodes: Strangers and Comrades plus Requiem.  Season 4 was where they were overused.

Not exactly the order I would put them in, but overall pretty solid.

500

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
pilight wrote:

Trump is a member of the wealthy elite and has been since the day he was born.  The notion that he'll do anything that will hurt his own fortune or standing is ludicrous.

Same exact thing could be said of Hillary.  The problem is that Trump can at least claim/lie about being his own man.  Everyone knows for sure that Hillary is in Wall Street's pocket.

She wasn't born into money the way he was, but she is bought and paid for.  Saying Trump is bad doesn't mean I'm saying Clinton is good.  I'm almost sure to vote for a smaller party candidate.

501

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump is a member of the wealthy elite and has been since the day he was born.  The notion that he'll do anything that will hurt his own fortune or standing is ludicrous.

502

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

I don't think I can vote for Trump. He might as well be Hillary.

You should investigate the smaller parties.

503

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The Democrats are more likely to be united than the Republicans are.  No matter who the Republican nominee is it will be someone most of the party voted against in the primaries.  Kasich even now has fewer votes and delegates than Marco Rubio.  He hasn't won anything but his home state against Trump and Cruz, what makes you think he can do so against Hillary Clinton?

There's also the possibility of a Trump proxy running if he doesn't get the nomination.  His supporters aren't going to get behind Cruz or Kasich or anyone else likely to come out of a contested convention.

504

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Another thing about Jill Stein the Greens, ballot access has been severely restricted since 2000.  Right now they're on the ballot in 18 states.  At best they'll get to 25 or 26.  Nader was on in 43.  Part of the reason we haven't had any serious competition for the older parties recently is that they've manipulated the laws to prevent it.

505

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Ralph Nader only got 685,128 votes (0.71% of the popular vote) in 1996.  In 2000, he got 2,882,955 votes (2.74%), including 97,488 in Florida.  The state that decided the election by 537 votes.

And if you didn't think Nader had an impact on 2000, Hillary's people are already calling Bernie the next Nader.  So if Stein can get the same jump that Nader got and steal away any of the Bernie people....it's going to be a problem for her.

This election isn't going to be that close.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Definition of war:

a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

Definition of civil:

courteous and polite

So a courteous and polite state of armed conflict.  Sounds like it applies smile  Your problem seems to be with the use of "civil war" in the 1860s - a war most people call "The War Between the States....because there was nothing civil about it." tongue

"The War of Northern Aggression" is the preferred phrase around here.

507

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Well, Jill Stein has already made a few moves on Twitter to get some of the Bernie supporters that Hillary is driving away.  It'll be interesting to see if she's able to pull enough votes to scare the Democrats.

Stein was the Green Party nominee four years ago and got about 1/3 of 1% of the vote.  I doubt she'll do any better this time if she's the Green nominee again.

508

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

The Bernie Bros will come around just like the PUMAs did eight years ago.  Clinton didn't drop out until Obama had the nomination locked up, in June.  Why she would expect any different from Sanders is puzzling.

Sanders needs to stay in just in case Clinton gets indicted (which is unlikely, but not impossible).

509

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
pilight wrote:

I just don't know who you're going to vote for if...

when someone has spent their entire lives bullying, manipulating, and cheating their way to the top, I don't want to see them succeed.

...is a deal breaker.

True.  But I think we can agree that there's a difference between your typical politician and the laundry list of scandals that the Clintons have left in their wake.  If anyone can give me a reason to vote for her that doesn't involve "well, everyone else is also awful, and I think she's less awful", I promise to reconsider.

So you'll vote for someone who's more awful instead?  Or are you looking at smaller party candidates?

510

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I just don't know who you're going to vote for if...

when someone has spent their entire lives bullying, manipulating, and cheating their way to the top, I don't want to see them succeed.

...is a deal breaker.

In the case of Sleepy Hollow, the people who created the show are not the same ones who are running it now.  So, no, I don't trust them to create a character as good as they one they killed.

ireactions wrote:
pilight wrote:
Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Next Star Wars question I've always had.  Can the Death Star travel at hyperspeed (is that what it's called in SW?)?  It has to, right?  That would've been quite the visual.

It clearly had some kind of FTL capability.  Otherwise it would take hundreds of years to get from system to system.

I wondered if they would eventually get the range so powerful on the Death Star that it wouldn't need to move. But the books declared it had hyperdrive, so I always went with that. To be honest, I'm not entirely clear if ships in STAR WARS can even move faster than light -- off the top of my head, the characters only refer to going at "light speed" but then the use of hyperspace suggests that reaching light speed lets them enter a realm where ships can 'jump' to a farther location without travelling that distance.

In The Empire Strike Back, only a few minutes after the Millennium Falcon appears to take off from the asteroid field Needa tells Vader the ship could be "on the other side of the galaxy by now."

Really, though, all the ships move at the speed of plot.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Next Star Wars question I've always had.  Can the Death Star travel at hyperspeed (is that what it's called in SW?)?  It has to, right?  That would've been quite the visual.

It clearly had some kind of FTL capability.  Otherwise it would take hundreds of years to get from system to system.

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I was actually asking about the timeline of Star Wars.  How many days does A New Hope take place during?  It almost seems like it's one day.

Essentially two days.

C-3PO and R2-D2 escape one day.  Luke buys them and cleans them up then R2-D2 runs while he's eating dinner and whining about having to stay when all his friends are gone.  Luke looks a little, but it's too dangerous to go after him at night with all the Sand People.

Early the next morning he takes C-3PO and goes hunting for R2-D2.  The rest of the movie up to the destruction of the Death Star and return to base takes place that day.

The medal ceremony at the end is probably a different day, if that matters.

Han and Rey bonding so quickly -- oh come on. This is a god-damn STAR WARS movie. That's how these things work. Han bonded with Luke in STAR WARS and that was maybe half a day, to the point where Han (extremely charitably) declared Luke to be "good in a fight," which is one of the most laughable things Han has ever said.

Han risked his life for Luke at least twice the first day they met.

How hard can lightsaber fighting be?  Finn held his own with Kylo Ren for a good while with no training and no force sensitivity.  Nobody seems bothered by that.

I'm quitting Sleepy Hollow because Abbie is fundamental to the show and a far more interesting character than Ichabod.  It would be like a Sherlock Holmes series killing off Watson.

How did I get here?  I was doing research for a fanfic and ran across Earth Prime, which led me here.

I'm on Team Reboot because I want something that will last a while.

Getting the band back together would be fun for a one off movie or maybe a mini-series if the interest is there, but if we want something that will run for several years then a reboot with a younger cast is the only way to go.

520

(4 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Surf Dance Chris wrote:

Pretty good, considering they literally picked a random episode. One guy never saw any other episode, not even the pilot and gave a decent review considering.

They both seemed very surprised that Wade is a female named Wade. When I hear "Wade" I always think female. I really barely know the name Wade outside of Sliders. Is it really a typical male name?

Wade is more commonly male than female

Quinn is sometimes female

Maximilian is always male

I've never heard of a real person whose first name was Rembrandt

Maggie and Diana are always female

Colin is always male

WHo does have the rights to Sliders these days?

Jerry O'Connell: Stand By Me

Sabrina Lloyd: Sports Night

John Rhys-Davies: The Living Daylights (JRD has made a lot of crap in his career)

Cleavant Derricks: Moscow on the Hudson

Kari Wuhrer: Eight Legged Freaks

Charlie O'Connell: The only other thing he's done that I remember is Kraken: Tentacles of the Deep

Robert Floyd: Cold Hearts

Tembi Locke: Eureka (I've liked her in just about everything I've seen her in)

523

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I've seen Republicans in charge at the federal level.  They don't reduce the size or scope of government.  Bush had majorities in the house and senate for the first six years of his presidency.  Not a single cabinet department got a budget cut.  In fact, they all got huge increases.  The Department of Energy, which they supposedly want to eliminate, had its budget doubled under Bush.

I'm not in favor of universal health care, but I recognize that it is inevitable.  We'll go that way for the same reason every other civilized country already has, it saves money.

524

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

I would disagree that republicans want universal healthcare. Conservatives and libertarians want the government involved in as little of their lives as possible. Putting the government in charge of healthcare is exactly what they don't want.

Libertarians have no influence in the GOP.

Many of the rank & file Republican voters have no problem with government programs as long as they're able to benefit from them.  They don't like welfare and food stamps and similar programs because it's only available to some of the people, the one's they see as lazy.  They love medicare and social security, which is how you get to them carrying signs saying "keep the government out of my medicare" and the like.  That seems silly on its face, but what they're really saying is "don't politicize my health".  If universal health care was put up for referendum it would pass overwhelmingly with majorities of both parties.

525

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump wants to replace Obamacare with universal coverage.  Unlike the establishment Republicans, he realizes that the rank & file GOP voters also want that.

526

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Question - does Trump owe a lot of his success to the fact that Hillary is the Democratic candidate?  I think enough people dislike her that most people might even see him as the lesser of two evils.

I don't see how that makes him preferable to Kasich or Rubio or Jeb.  None of them are Hillary Clinton either.  Trump is actually closer to being Clinton than any of them are.

527

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:
pilight wrote:

Garland certainly isn't very liberal.  When the GOP loses the senate and the presidency they'll be wishing they had confirmed him when they had the chance.

Yeah I'd rather take a choice from Obama than Hillary.

I wouldn't discount the possibility of a lame duck confirmation in December if Hillary wins the election, especially if the Demos win the senate.

528

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

A republican senate isn't going to confirm a very liberal nominee. Even if they went through the whole process and only rejected him in the end, people would complain that they're not doing their job, because that's what the liberal politicians are saying. They will continue to say it unless Garland is confirmed, especially since it's an election year and it makes for a good stump speech.

Garland certainly isn't very liberal.  When the GOP loses the senate and the presidency they'll be wishing they had confirmed him when they had the chance.

529

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

Confirmed in an election year, but the process started much earlier than that, and Kennedy came about after another nominee was rejected. And that was after a Planned retirement, not a sudden death.

We are eight months from the election. Eleven from inauguration day. The Republicans aren't going to approve Obama's nom. There is no reason for them to. They could put on a show, but wouldn't that be wasting everyone's time?

The reason they might approve would be fear of losing the senate and ending up with someone much further to the left or Donald Trump being president and nominating ghod knows who.  He was pro-choice for a long time before expediently changing when he decided to run.  Wait until next year and they might be in the minority looking at someone like Pam Karlan as the nominee.

Polls suggest most people want the senate to do their job and vote on Obama's nominee.  Dragging their feet is going to hurt in November.

530

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

As for the republicans not humoring Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice... I don't think it's unusual or unexpected. There was just a line in an episode of House of Cards about voting in a Justice during an election, as though it was unthinkable. And that would have been filmed long before it was a real life issue this year.

It's definitely unusual.  It is almost unprecedented, in fact, for the senate to not hold hearings on a nominee.  It last happened in 1844 after president John Tyler was renounced by the Whigs and both parties were determined to undermine him.  Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in an election year.

531

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

I've read some articles that actually say that the US would be run better with a CEO-type than a politician

The government isn't a corporation and the president doesn't have the same powers as a CEO, so it wouldn't really work the way people think.

Jimmy Carter ran the White House the same way he ran his peanut farm.  It didn't work out well.

532

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

It's mostly the Republicans who have pushed the dysfunctional government narrative, and they're often responsible for delaying and/or obstructing when it occurs.  Witness their unwillingness to even consider meeting the president's nominee for the supreme court.

The American populace has always been politically ill informed.  Nothing new about that.

533

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

"Mr President..."

"Please, call me Colonel"

534

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Informant wrote:

He still needs a home, food, internet, Netflix, etc. Being super wouldn't solve everything unless he stole money.

He doesn't need to eat or sleep, so he doesn't really need a home.  I'm sure phone companies would be all over themselves to give him a phone with whatever internet service he needs, just so they can advertise that he uses their service.

535

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Why would he need a job at all?

536

(1,098 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

I thought Reeve was good even if the movies were mostly bad.  He was a better actor than the Supermen who have come after him.

As for being physically wrong, Superman shouldn't be huge and muscular.  His strength doesn't come from his muscles.  Having essentially unlimited strength means there's no real way for him to work out and make his muscles bigger.

537

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Voting for Trump because you're concerned about integrity and operating within the law is an unimaginable level of cognitive dissonance.

538

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Trump an "outsider"?  HA!  He was born into money and has had deep political connections his whole life.

539

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

There's not a chance that Clinton will be indicted.  If they had something they would have charged her by now.

540

(3,486 replies, posted in Sliders Bboard)

Carson isn't going to drop out until the donations dry up.  His whole campaign is a money making scam.  99% of the money coming in to his Super Pac gets paid out in "consulting fees".  No shock that the consulting firms getting paid are owned by the same people who set up the Super Pac in the first place.  In turn, they set Carson up with cushy spots on the boards of their other companies.  Everybody goes home happy...except the suckers who donated.

Clinton is a standard issue politician.  She's no more or less dishonest or manipulative than anyone else in Washington.

Cruz is an irredeemably awful human being.  Even the people voting for him don't like him.  When Trump called him a pussy everyone's reaction was "You can't say that!"  Not one person anywhere stepped up to dispute Trump's conclusion.  They just took issue with how bluntly he said it.  Besides, he's not actually eligible to be president since he is not a natural born citizen.

Rubio is a lightweight who only looks like a middleweight because the Koch brothers are propping him up.

Trump is an unqualified blowhard with a temperament unsuited to the presidency.  He's got limited national appeal.  If he does get the GOP nomination, the Demo candidate will win in a historic landslide.